ID Theory & Young Earth Creationism

Mere
Mere's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-05-11
User is offlineOffline
ID Theory & Young Earth Creationism

1. Is ID a theory from ignorance, or a scientific theory? Evidences?

2. What are the fundamental issues regarding Young Earth Creationism?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2404
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Mere wrote:1. Is ID a theory

Mere wrote:

1. Is ID a theory from ignorance, or a scientific theory? Evidences?

2. What are the fundamental issues regarding Young Earth Creationism?

 

 

                       I responded to your query on another post but I'll do it again here;

 

                1] It is from the ignorence of people trying to make religion and science the same subject.  When they are totally different fields of study.

 

 

                2]   Y E C 's can't tollerate any bit of reality that chllenges their holy book. The world can not be more then 10,000 years old because the bible says so.

   reference this video

                                http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/31241

 

 

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Mere wrote:1. Is ID a theory

Mere wrote:

1. Is ID a theory from ignorance, or a scientific theory? Evidences?

2. What are the fundamental issues regarding Young Earth Creationism?

1.  ID is not in any way a scientific theory.  It posits no testable hypothesis.  Really all it does is try to say that the Theory of Evolution is incorrect.  That's really all it is.

Saying things like animals, organs, etc. could never have evolved naturally and so must have been created.

2.  YEC is nothing more than an argument stating that the bible is the word of god and must be taken literally.  So they will deny all scientific evidence that contradicts the Genesis book in the bible.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Mere wrote:1. Is ID a theory

Mere wrote:

1. Is ID a theory from ignorance, or a scientific theory? Evidences?

2. What are the fundamental issues regarding Young Earth Creationism?

1. ID is crap and nothing more than humans wanting a super hero to be the expliantion. It is comic book garbage.

2. There are no "fundamentals" to believing shit because of wishful thinking. All that is required is suspension of disbelief. It is an argument from ignorace. It is intelectual laziness. People prefer placebo fantasy over actuall testing which requires thinking questioning and the willingness to discard bad claims and bad data.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Mere wrote:1. Is ID a theory

Mere wrote:

1. Is ID a theory from ignorance, or a scientific theory?

Neither. ID is a desperate lie.

Quote:
Evidences?

I could explain it, or demonstrate it. I'll go with the demonstration:
The scientific method, the scientific definition of theory. Look up both of these, then look at ID whilst keeping in mind what the requirements of a scientific theory are. You'll find ID doesn't cut it.

Before it was tested and found to be false, irreducible complexity did actually conform to the requirements of a theory, but then it was proven wrong. There is no irreducible complexity.

Quote:
2. What are the fundamental issues regarding Young Earth Creationism?

A better question would be what isn't a fundamental isse for young Earth creationists. The only answer would be the bible. Everything else ever examined suggests a 4.5ish billion year old Earth.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
To Reiterate;

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


Mere
Mere's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Normal 0

Thanks for taking the time again Jeffrick. I have just start forums so its great to see the various sources of information available to the public.

To your #1 response, could you elaborate on how ID and science do not pertain to the same subject? To my understanding, while ID proposes intelligence, it is based on observation and deduction from systems such as blood clotting and transport systems in the human body.

More specifically we start by asking how we explain things in ordinary life, that is:

-Necessity: law, regularity, natural law

-Chance: random occurrence

-Design: Intelligence, purpose, agency

In relation to ID and the capacity to infer design, we look for four criteria of

"1. Contingency (essential to choice)

2. Probability (statistical theory)

3. Complexity (improbability)

4. Specificity (structure vs. noise)"

....concluding specified complexity s an empirical marker of design - i.e. A biological system

-A process not void of the scientific method nor what I believe is your idea of the "blueprint." If otherwise, could you help explain? Thanks!

To you second response, another questions regards the issues that contend with scientific evidence. After reading a few of the articles on the AiG website, I found a particular article that addressed the ice sheets which would -normally- contradict a ~10,000 year old earth.

The article states that "areas that appear to have evidence of more than one ice age can be reinterpreted to be the deposits from one ice sheet that advanced and retreated over a short period." It also states that our present "understanding of global activity" shows the "dynamic" nature of our ice sheets. This dynamic nature allots for the multiple ice ages which do not have to be individual ice ages which require hundreds of thousand of years. Another point is the possible means by which the flood could have accounted for our current ice age. Such a flood would have caused "volcanic effluents" to reflect "sunlight back to space and caused cooler summers." This would be especially true for decreased temperatures near the north and south poles. Cool summers and precipitation "accounted for in the Bible would fit with our understanding of the previous ice age. The article states the use of numerical stimulations which point to the formations of ice sheets, thousands of feet thick within 500 years.

After reading a few articles such as these involving sediment layers, ice sheets, and the light of stars, there seemed to be a central -line- of scientific inquiry/dialogue which the not completely dismiss a young earth; still maintaining the chronology and/or literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.

Sorry for the blurb before the question, it was mean't as background to my inquiry- but could you expand on the "reality(ies)" that challenge Genesis?

 

 

 

Caduceus


Mere
Mere's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Mere wrote:1.

Watcher wrote:

Mere wrote:

 

1. Is ID a theory from ignorance, or a scientific theory? Evidences?

2. What are the fundamental issues regarding Young Earth Creationism?

Watcher replied:

1.  ID is not in any way a scientific theory.  It posits no testable hypothesis.  Really all it does is try to say that the Theory of Evolution is incorrect.  That's really all it is.

Saying things like animals, organs, etc. could never have evolved naturally and so must have been created.

2.  YEC is nothing more than an argument stating that the bible is the word of god and must be taken literally.  So they will deny all scientific evidence that contradicts the Genesis book in the bible.

[/quote/]

 

 

 

 

-Mere

I have a few questions.

1. Does ID entirely refute the Theory of Evolution? or does it propose that natural selection does not account for all variation of life because natural selection only selects for the  advantages which do not consist of irreducibly complex systems?

2. In terms of the testable hypothesis, please correct me if I am wrong; the criteria for design inference would be - Null Hypothesis: Contingency, Probability, Complexity, Specificity -> design inference - intelligence. vs Null Alternative, fail of criteria and fail as empirical marker of design. Would this not be a suitable testable hypothesis? If it is not, could you help explain its flaw as a hypothesis and scientific theory? as it would seem to me that ID does have components of the scientific method.

Caduceus


Mere
Mere's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-05-11
User is offlineOffline
In Response to Vastet

Thanks, I looked up both. I see your point/ I am a bit lost on how ID would predict natural phenomenon. However I am not sure how ID is a "lie" ... which leads to my next question(s):

How do you define irreducible complexity and more importantly, could please explain how irreducible complexity was "proven wrong?" Rather than theory, IC appears from my point of view to be more of a -condition- for lack of a better term. 

So we have a consensus understanding of IC, I am working with the proposed definition of an IC by Michael Behe as "An irreducibily complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway."

 

Caduceus


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Mere wrote:How do you define

Mere wrote:
How do you define irreducible complexity and more importantly, could please explain how irreducible complexity was "proven wrong?

Irreducible complexity was the hypothesis that there were organs or other features of organisms which could not have evolved, because without a critical function the organ or other feature would have had no purpose.
Various examples were given to support the hypothesis, most notably the eye.
Under peer review by the scientific community, it was discovered that every feature found in a life form still had a use if a so-called critical function were removed.
The eye, it was found, evolved slowly starting from something as simple as a light sensitive cell, and that every variant of the eye has or had a useful function for the creature that had one.
To this day, no example of irreducible complexity has been found to be irreducibly complex. Which is why I say it has been proven wrong.
Technically, there may yet be a biological feature that is irreducibly...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
...complex, and so science

...complex, and so science will always leave the question open to modification in the face of new evidence. But until something is found which violates our understanding, there is no reason to doubt its veracity. Much like you're safe to assume our understanding of gravity is right, or at least close enough, to know you aren't about to start floating around.
A significant number of atheists and religious folk who've accepted evolution snark at IC as utter foolishness, but in fact it is usually the failed hypothesis' which are the most useful, and IC was no exception. Evolution was challenged in a way noone had thought to challenge it, and new information, a greater understanding of evolution, was the result.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
If ID is equated with

If ID is equated with Creationism, then it is a weak theory based on religion.

If ID is the premise that Nature evidences intelligence, and evidences design, it is a working scientific hypothesis.

 


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Sockra Tease wrote:If ID is

Sockra Tease wrote:

If ID is the premise that Nature evidences intelligence, and evidences design, it is a working scientific hypothesis.

Not really.  In order to be a scientific hypothesis it has to not only explain some natural phenomena but have predictive value that can be tested.

Otherwise it's just some useless form of philosophy.

ID says, "God did it." then goes on to try and say why the Theory of Evolution is not true.

Pretty useless.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Sockra Tease wrote:If ID is

Sockra Tease wrote:

If ID is equated with Creationism, then it is a weak theory based on religion.

If ID is the premise that Nature evidences intelligence, and evidences design, it is a working scientific hypothesis.

 

ID does not qualify as scientific in any way, shape, or form.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
The articulation that Nature

The articulation that Nature evidences design can be considered scientific. The articulation that introduces a "designer" may be beyond science.

It is possible to present an "intelligent design" premise without inrtroducing a Designer.

It is simply an a apriori intuition that Nature evidences designs which can be articulated to us through languages - such as the periodic table or the Law of Gravity, as examples.

That can be postulated as "evidence" of design.

 

(Putting this in context of Dawkins' remark that God is indeed a scientific hypothesis)

 


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Sockra Tease wrote:The

Sockra Tease wrote:

The articulation that Nature evidences design can be considered scientific. The articulation that introduces a "designer" may be beyond science.

It is possible to present an "intelligent design" premise without inrtroducing a Designer.

It is simply an a apriori intuition that Nature evidences designs which can be articulated to us through languages - such as the periodic table or the Law of Gravity, as examples.

That can be postulated as "evidence" of design.

(Putting this in context of Dawkins' remark that God is indeed a scientific hypothesis)

Please present one plausible test of the idea that nature evidences design ("design" meaning it could not come about by natural processes).  Something that can be observed, measured, and proven to be true or false.

I don't think you know what "intelligent design" means.   Unless I'm horribly mistaken, and please anyone correct me if I am in error, it presupposes that some form of intelligence, designed something that could not be produced from blind, natural processes.

Of course the periodic table is designed.   That table was designed by a human for humanity to organize elements and their characteristics.   And Gravity is just a theory like Evolution.   Ever since Einstein, scientists never call anything a law anymore.  Calling the Theory of Gravity the "Law of Gravity" was us being a little arrogant.  Albert shocked everyone enough that everyone is hesitant to add such a moniker anymore.

Basically the same reason US Congress hasn't officially declared "war" on anyone since WWII.  Not even after 9/11.   The most tremendous loss of civilian American lives on American soil by one coordinated attack ever.  Which has resulted in the longest war/non-war in our nation's history.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Sockra Tease

Watcher wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:

The articulation that Nature evidences design can be considered scientific. The articulation that introduces a "designer" may be beyond science.

It is possible to present an "intelligent design" premise without inrtroducing a Designer.

It is simply an a apriori intuition that Nature evidences designs which can be articulated to us through languages - such as the periodic table or the Law of Gravity, as examples.

That can be postulated as "evidence" of design.

(Putting this in context of Dawkins' remark that God is indeed a scientific hypothesis)

Please present one plausible test of the idea that nature evidences design ("design" meaning it could not come about by natural processes).  Something that can be observed, measured, and proven to be true or false.

I don't think you know what "intelligent design" means.   Unless I'm horribly mistaken, and please anyone correct me if I am in error, it presupposes that some form of intelligence, designed something that could not be produced from blind, natural processes.

I agree. The definition of design needs examining. It is an idea undergoing an evolution itself. I hold to a philosophical definition that posits design in Nature. Of course, if you define 'design' as a supernatural thing, then we just disagree and are talking two different things. For me design, pertains to the notion of "laws". Its 'tests', so to speak, are consistency and durability and predictability. If Nature were chance only then "the apple would fall up every so often". But the apple never falls up. Gravity is evidence of design. For others, it is a property of matter, for others yet it is a "mysterious, invisible force". Do we know what gravity really is at that definitional level? ...Other than the relation evidenced by the Law?

Without design, in a universe of chance, E=mc{squared} would not hold true constantly and with predictability. There would be times when E did not equal...etc.

This relates to why I believe "natural selection" is not an explanation. For someone with an intuition of design, a relation is perceived to exist between the apple and the ground. The prior intuition of design resulted in the discovery of the Law of Gravity. An Evolutionist would simply declare, "the ground selected the apple; there is no real relation , it is merely a selection mechanism. End of story."

Watcher wrote:

Of course the periodic table is designed.   That table was designed by a human for humanity to organize elements and their characteristics.   And Gravity is just a theory like Evolution.   Ever since Einstein, scientists never call anything a law anymore.  Calling the Theory of Gravity the "Law of Gravity" was us being a little arrogant.  Albert shocked everyone enough that everyone is hesitant to add such a moniker anymore.

I agree again. And my position is ultimately that any intuition of design is applied to Nature by our brain. Just as our brain allows us to call the apple 'red'. A scientist, or such, who knows light and optics can correct us about light reflection/absorption and how the apple in itself isn't red but that we "SEE it as red". The "red" takes place in our brain. But ultimately it is as reasonable for us to say, "the apple is red" as it is to say, Nature evidences design. We don't need to invent a supernatural Colourizer to explain why we see red, just as we don't need to invent a Designer outside Nature to explain design. If people want to, that is just their personal belief. Nature can be a designer, if we wish. The periodic table itself is not the design, but what allows the periodic table to be useful with consistency over a long span of time (that being a 'test') is what evidences design. That the periodic table could even exist evidences design.

Of course, I would argue that Evolution and Gravity are quite different theories. Gravity Theory can be directly evidenced in Nature. Evolution is posited by inferred evidence asserted to exist. An Evolutionist cannot drop an apple on the ground and show you Evolution. Gravity Theory is very plainly demonstrable. That is why ET wants so desperately to be seen as just like Gravity Theory. Gravity Theory is a scientific theory; Evolution is "just a theory".

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Sockra Tease wrote:The

Sockra Tease wrote:
The articulation that Nature evidences design can be considered scientific.

Ridiculous is the correct word, not scientific. The only scientific hypothesis to ever exist which could have supported this absurd notion was IC, and it was proven false. Therefore ID has nothing scientific about it.

Sockra Tease wrote:
The articulation that introduces a designer may be beyond science.

The two positions you post are identical and self supporting. If you could prove design, then you've proven a designer, by proxy.

But you can't prove either, so the point is moot.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Also, WE created the

Also, WE created the periodic table. WE created the THEORY of gravity. We did it so WE could understand how things work. They are not languages. Not even close.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Sockra Tease

Vastet wrote:
Sockra Tease wrote:
The articulation that Nature evidences design can be considered scientific.
Ridiculous is the correct word, not scientific. The only scientific hypothesis to ever exist which could have supported this absurd notion was IC, and it was proven false. Therefore ID has nothing scientific about it.
Sockra Tease wrote:
The articulation that introduces a designer may be beyond science.
The two positions you post are identical and self supporting. If you could prove design, then you've proven a designer, by proxy. But you can't prove either, so the point is moot.

 

I don't recall IC being proven false. I only recall counter-arguments being made. But nowadays, thanks to Evolution Theory changing the rules of science, anything can be called 'proof'.

ID is not a scientific theory, and it is not an independent science. There are no separarte ID textbooks. ID is the rational premise that Nature evidences design. It is a premise based on observation of Nature and an inference thereon. It is a premise that 'stands behind' biology, and so, the biology texts don't have to all be rewritten. It is as "scientific" as the premise of 'natural selection' - yet another premise and inference placed upon what is observed in Nature. There have been no scientific tests done on the hypothesis of 'natural selection'. That is because it is an inference about how abiogenesis works; it is not a mechanism that can be isolated out of Nature and tested.

Feel free to say "it's ridiculous, just look around and you will see natural selection in action all over the place", but of course, you have to allow the ID proponents to do the same. It is an argument so weak, you will have to let everybody use it.

To argue that a Designer follows from 'design' is a non sequitor. It is a compelling one, but that is down to the mere etymology of the word 'design'. And yes, some folks jump on the word to bring baggage with it. Two types of folks rely on this non sequitor: theists who WANT a designer, and pretend that design necessarily entails a designer, and folks who WANT to trash ID and pretend that 'design' necessarily entails a 'designer'. Both camps are in error.

Design no more requires a designer than the Law of Gravity necessitates a Law-Maker. It is a word with baggage. Design is simply an alternate intuition to 'blind chance' - another inference that can't be scientifically tested.

Strictly within science you are correct: 'intelligent design' cannot be proven to exist. Scientific tests can't be applied to it. However, the same state exists with 'natural selection'. It cannot be tested. Scientifically, natural selection cannot be proven to exist. Either premise requires a bunch of people to simply assert "that is does exist, and let's just get on with our work."

 


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Also, WE

Vastet wrote:
Also, WE created the periodic table. WE created the THEORY of gravity. We did it so WE could understand how things work. They are not languages. Not even close.

Indeed We did create the table. And what it represents is a picture of the design of things in Nature. It becomes part of 'language' when we accept that the table communicates something to us. If it did not communicate information to us, we wouldn't use it - it would put in the bin and sent to oblivion. But we use it because it presents information to us about the "order" of things in Nature. If there were no order, nor design, in Nature then the table would not apply: by blind chance hydrogen would have two protons one day, one proton the next, then twelves protons the next, and so on. Hydrogen has one proton.... for all time it seems. That is order. That is design.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Sockra Tease wrote:
If ID is the premise that Nature evidences intelligence, and evidences design, it is a working scientific hypothesis.
 

And as there is no evidence of it what is your point?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Sockra Tease wrote:

The articulation that Nature evidences design can be considered scientific. The articulation that introduces a "designer" may be beyond science.

Mere statement is not science. Articulation can be done by a million monkeys at a million keyboards and often seems to be done that way.

Quote:
It is possible to present an "intelligent design" premise without inrtroducing a Designer.

Then you have to lose design and all synonyms in one or the other part of that statement.

Quote:
It is simply an a apriori intuition that Nature evidences designs which can be articulated to us through languages - such as the periodic table or the Law of Gravity, as examples.

Intuition is not science. Neither of your examples are either intuitive or language based.

Quote:
That can be postulated as "evidence" of design.

(Putting this in context of Dawkins' remark that God is indeed a scientific hypothesis)

 

Dawkins is in his field in matters of scientific debate. He is out of his field with public debate. He should know not to say things like that the believers will always omit the next statement that it is a failed hypothesis.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Sockra Tease wrote:
This relates to why I believe "natural selection" is not an explanation. For someone with an intuition of design, a relation is perceived to exist between the apple and the ground. The prior intuition of design resulted in the discovery of the Law of Gravity.


If you are gong to talk about Newton and gravity at least get it right. He did absolutely nothing regarding gravity on earth and things falling. That had all been done by Galileo. Newton's contribution was that the planets also moved because of gravity, universal gravitation it was called. Poetically, as on earth so also in the heavens.

Yes all the cartoons and TV expositions are WRONG. But is that really surprising?

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Sockra Tease wrote:
Of course, I would argue that Evolution and Gravity are quite different theories. Gravity Theory can be directly evidenced in Nature. Evolution is posited by inferred evidence asserted to exist. An Evolutionist cannot drop an apple on the ground and show you Evolution. Gravity Theory is very plainly demonstrable. That is why ET wants so desperately to be seen as just like Gravity Theory. Gravity Theory is a scientific theory; Evolution is "just a theory".
 

A theory is an explanation of facts nothing more. The more facts explained the better the theory. That is all there is to it. You now know it all.

Natural selection is a better explanation than divine intervention as intervention can explain everything and thus explains nothing.

Sneaking in the word intelligent does not explain the facts. Anyone who wears glasses knows if the eye was designed the designer was an idiot. Therefore intelligent is rejected because it does not explain the facts.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Sockra Tease wrote:

Design no more requires a designer than the Law of Gravity necessitates a Law-Maker. It is a word with baggage. Design is simply an alternate intuition to 'blind chance' - another inference that can't be scientifically tested.

If design does not require a designer then you are going to have to reveal the secret definition of the word you are using. Until you do your statement cannot be distinguished from gibberish.

Quote:
Strictly within science you are correct: 'intelligent design' cannot be proven to exist. Scientific tests can't be applied to it. However, the same state exists with 'natural selection'. It cannot be tested. Scientifically, natural selection cannot be proven to exist. Either premise requires a bunch of people to simply assert "that is does exist, and let's just get on with our work."
 

Who told you natural selection cannot be tested? And why did you believe them? It has been tested hundreds of times in the lab. What fools try to denigrate as blind chance is common experience.

The children of the same parents are different. Not just externally but in every other way. There is your blind chance in everyday life. Call it variation in allele frequency and you can impress the natives. Those with the least resistance to childhood illnesses die before they can have children and resistance is passed on to the children that survive. There you have diversity in degree of disease resistance and natural selection in producing children of their own.

That is all there is to Darwin's explanation of the fact of evolution. Where is there design of any kind in the process?

Darwin's theory explains all the facts we have uncovered. Design does not explain much of anything even if it tries. Natural selection is the mechanism of evolution. Explain how design can be the mechanism of ALL evolution. If it cannot explain EVERYTHING Darwin explains and more then it is not as good as Darwin's theory.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Sockra Tease wrote:Indeed We

Sockra Tease wrote:
Indeed We did create the table. And what it represents is a picture of the design of things in Nature. It becomes part of 'language' when we accept that the table communicates something to us. If it did not communicate information to us, we wouldn't use it - it would put in the bin and sent to oblivion. But we use it because it presents information to us about the "order" of things in Nature. If there were no order, nor design, in Nature then the table would not apply: by blind chance hydrogen would have two protons one day, one proton the next, then twelves protons the next, and so on. Hydrogen has one proton.... for all time it seems. That is order. That is design.

Do you have the least idea how and why the table is organized the way it is? There is a quiz if you claim you do and still claim it is a language.

Here is a very big hint for you. The table was invented before anyone had any idea that atoms had protons and electrons and such. It was organized based upon the chemical properties of the atoms. It was proposed  in 1869 by Mendeleev.

If you did not know that you don't know jack about the subject.

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Mere
Mere's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-05-11
User is offlineOffline
To your response that "to

To SOCKRA TEASE's responses that "to argue that a Designer follows from 'design is a non sequitor" but also that "ID is the rational premise that Nature evidence design seem to be conflicting ideas, in that while you presented the analogy of gravity not requiring a designer or "Law-Maker," by concluding IC, one establishes/observes an object that exhibits Specified Complexity and thus infers design, "drawing from our knowledge that the only known source of Complex Specified Information (CSI) is an intelligent agent.

When we have something with CSI we logically conclude intelligent design- as naturalistic mechanism are unable to account for these biological CSI features, once again inferring design.

For example every year Victoria Secret hosts a collegiate showdown, where the college with the greatest number of votes has an event hosted at their college. Here is a more detailed summary of what happened <voices.yahoo.com/techharvey-mudd-college-students-hack-panties-5041194.html?cat=15>.

Basically a small school Harvey Mudd College- with little to no chance of winning, hacked the system, placed Harvey Mudd College at the #1 position, and wrote this message using the first letter of the order of the colleges. "HARVEY MUDD ROX BOO CALTECH" - also slandering their rival college CalTech. Here's the picture

<www.muddraker.xylogarfalina.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Vol-19-Issue-2.pdf>.

H

A

R

V

E

Y

M

U

D

D

R

O

X

B

O

O

C

A

L

T

E

C

H

Why is this significant? Because the example fulfills the criteria to establish specified complexity- criteria stated in the my first post. The event exemplifies Contingency, that is, the exact letter choices were not necessary to express the same opinion, it could have been stated another way. The 23 letter message was Complex and improbable, but it also had specificity and significance in expressing an opinion correlating to reality. Further, the placement of the phrase also indicates Specificity. If the letters which constitute the phrase were found intermittently horizontal, vertical, and diagonal in random places with many schools listed; it would not have produced the same specificity as the phrase being formed by taking the first letter of each row. The fulfillment of all these criteria leads us to conclude that there was design and that the result was not due to blind natural occurrence. The exactness of those criteria leads us to also believe that there was intelligent design, in this case, a possible rigged system.

Again, the step is not made simply by proponents or opponents of ID. It is a design inference made by observing specified complexity to confirm that the only known source of CSI is an intelligent agent.

Also also stated was that "Two types of folks rely on this non sequitor: theists who WANT a designer, and pretend that design necessarily entails a designer, and folks who WANT to trash ID and pretend that design necessarily entails a designer'. Both camps are in error."

Some theists would say otherwise and argue that ID is actually an argument against their (G)god(s)- and cite an example such as the female reproductive system. That attributing (G)god to design would be attributing (G)god to error- i.e. number/amount of miscarriages.

Caduceus


Mere
Mere's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-05-11
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Sockra

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:
If ID is the premise that Nature evidences intelligence, and evidences design, it is a working scientific hypothesis.
 

And as there is no evidence of it what is your point?

 

There are a number of evidences for irreducibly complex systems, though you may wish to contend them. Ive posted a few in another post but here are a few.

1. Bacteria Flagellum as I'm sure you've heard

2. Light-sensing system in animal eyes,

3. Transport system within the cell

4. Blood Clotting System

5. Butterflies (Metamorphosis)

Caduceus


Mere
Mere's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-05-11
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Sockra

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:
Of course, I would argue that Evolution and Gravity are quite different theories. Gravity Theory can be directly evidenced in Nature. Evolution is posited by inferred evidence asserted to exist. An Evolutionist cannot drop an apple on the ground and show you Evolution. Gravity Theory is very plainly demonstrable. That is why ET wants so desperately to be seen as just like Gravity Theory. Gravity Theory is a scientific theory; Evolution is "just a theory".
 

A theory is an explanation of facts nothing more. The more facts explained the better the theory. That is all there is to it. You now know it all.

Natural selection is a better explanation than divine intervention as intervention can explain everything and thus explains nothing.

Sneaking in the word intelligent does not explain the facts. Anyone who wears glasses knows if the eye was designed the designer was an idiot. Therefore intelligent is rejected because it does not explain the facts.

1. What is your understanding of Intelligent Design?

2. What do you mean by "divine intervention as intervention can explain everything and thus explain nothing?

3. How do you come to the conclusion that "Anyone who wears glasses.... idiot," as you are implying/claiming that the inverted eye is a flawed/bad design.

4. What do you mean & can you expand on "intelligent is rejected because it does not explain facts?"

Caduceus


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Mere wrote:

There are a number of evidences for irreducibly complex systems, though you may wish to contend them. Ive posted a few in another post but here are a few.

1. Bacteria Flagellum as I'm sure you've heard

2. Light-sensing system in animal eyes,

3. Transport system within the cell

4. Blood Clotting System

5. Butterflies (Metamorphosis)

So your purportedly innocent OP was the expected venue of introducing long discredited claims of the crazy creationists regardless of what they are calling themselves this week.

No I am not going to debunk those again. The debunking can be easily googled. That you pretend you have something new is only pretending you are completely ignorant of the subject. You cannot claim an honest interest in the subject and not know those and all the rest were debunked as soon as the creationists produced them. You folks pretend to such ignorance to sneak into the discussion and then get so pissed when you are called ignorant.

Please find some place else for your simpleton tricks like a kindergarten.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Mere wrote:

1. What is your understanding of Intelligent Design?

I wear glasses. I know any designer of eyes is either malevolent or incompetent.

Quote:
2. What do you mean by "divine intervention as intervention can explain everything and thus explain nothing?

By definition a theory must explain ALL facts. Darwin explains more facts and does not need to invoke your malevolent/incompetent designer.

Quote:
3. How do you come to the conclusion that "Anyone who wears glasses.... idiot," as you are implying/claiming that the inverted eye is a flawed/bad design.

By knowing I have fired engineers who have come up with designs with fewer faults than human eyes. Would you buy a camera that stops focusing just because the lens got old? Or some asshole who chose glass that got cataracts? If you don't fire designers like that you go out of business. They are incompetent. Or they are secretly working for the competition and trying to ruin your business.

Quote:
4. What do you mean & can you expand on "intelligent is rejected because it does not explain facts?"

It cannot explain why all endoskeleton animals have four limbs? It cannot explain only one spine, or only lungs or bilateral symmetry or only one nose or only two eyes or or or [insert here a list of all other similarities]

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Mere
Mere's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-05-11
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Mere

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Mere wrote:

There are a number of evidences for irreducibly complex systems, though you may wish to contend them. Ive posted a few in another post but here are a few.

1. Bacteria Flagellum as I'm sure you've heard

2. Light-sensing system in animal eyes,

3. Transport system within the cell

4. Blood Clotting System

5. Butterflies (Metamorphosis)

So your purportedly innocent OP was the expected venue of introducing long discredited claims of the crazy creationists regardless of what they are calling themselves this week.

No I am not going to debunk those again. The debunking can be easily googled. That you pretend you have something new is only pretending you are completely ignorant of the subject. You cannot claim an honest interest in the subject and not know those and all the rest were debunked as soon as the creationists produced them. You folks pretend to such ignorance to sneak into the discussion and then get so pissed when you are called ignorant.

Please find some place else for your simpleton tricks like a kindergarten.

 

 

 

To your response "So your purportedly... Week." No, I am just responding to your above post about a lack of evidence for irreducibly complex systems, a few of which I posted. Your argument claims no evidence for IC systems, but you do not support the claim because "the debunking can be easily goggled" - the information is readily available. Okay. However, it is still unclear as to your understanding of ID, and the basis on which you claim that there is a lack of evidence for IC systems. It would be appreciated if you could be more specific in how these systems have been debunked, what your understanding of ID is, on what basis these evidences systems have been debunked, and a more specific direction to these articles/evidences- we may have an entirely different understanding of ID.

Caduceus


Mere
Mere's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-05-11
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Mere

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Mere wrote:

1. What is your understanding of Intelligent Design?

I wear glasses. I know any designer of eyes is either malevolent or incompetent.

Quote:
2. What do you mean by "divine intervention as intervention can explain everything and thus explain nothing?

By definition a theory must explain ALL facts. Darwin explains more facts and does not need to invoke your malevolent/incompetent designer.

Quote:
3. How do you come to the conclusion that "Anyone who wears glasses.... idiot," as you are implying/claiming that the inverted eye is a flawed/bad design.

By knowing I have fired engineers who have come up with designs with fewer faults than human eyes. Would you buy a camera that stops focusing just because the lens got old? Or some asshole who chose glass that got cataracts? If you don't fire designers like that you go out of business. They are incompetent. Or they are secretly working for the competition and trying to ruin your business.

Quote:
4. What do you mean & can you expand on "intelligent is rejected because it does not explain facts?"

It cannot explain why all endoskeleton animals have four limbs? It cannot explain only one spine, or only lungs or bilateral symmetry or only one nose or only two eyes or or or [insert here a list of all other similarities]

#1 your response that you have glasses, thus implying poor intelligent design, is analogous to stating "my joints hurt"  - concluding poor design or "this soup is too spicy" -concluding the chef has poor skills/taste. This opinion can be entirely subjective, but also states nothing about your knowledge of what intelligent design is.

Could you please clarify your understanding of Intelligent Design?

#2 How did you come to the conclusion that a "theory must explain all facts?" And that ID is an argument from ignorance or that it claims it explain all facts?

#3 Cameras do get old and stop working, "glass that got cataracts" (humans who get glasses) or maintenance/parts for cameras are needed. These are the basis for your claims that the human eye is an inherently flawed design, but these claims are circumstantial; your analogy compares how time/external factors causes wear the the human eye rather than suggest why the eye is flawed -> why ID is an argument from ignorance/why an intelligent designer is "malevolent" or "incompetent."

#4 Natural Selection does not claim why, it helps explain how.    How did you come to the conclusion that ID explains why? What do you mean by Why?

Caduceus


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Sockra Tease wrote:I don't

Sockra Tease wrote:
I don't recall IC being proven false.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Provide an example of IC, and I'll provide you a study showing it isn't an example of IC.

Quote:
But nowadays, thanks to Evolution Theory changing the rules of science, anything can be called 'proof'.

Lies. The standards of science have become more solid with every passing decade through all of human history with one exception: the crusades.

Quote:
ID is the irrational premise that Nature evidences design.

Fixed.

Quote:
To argue that a Designer follows from 'design' is a non sequitor.

No, it's an axiom. An absolute requirement. There can be no design without a designer. By definition. Period.

Quote:
1. Bacteria Flagellum as I'm sure you've heard

2. Light-sensing system in animal eyes,

3. Transport system within the cell

4. Blood Clotting System

5. Butterflies (Metamorphosis)

A brief google search shows every example given here torn apart by scientists.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Sockra Tease

Vastet wrote:
Sockra Tease wrote:
I don't recall IC being proven false.
Then you haven't been paying attention. Provide an example of IC, and I'll provide you a study showing it isn't an example of IC.
Quote:
But nowadays, thanks to Evolution Theory changing the rules of science, anything can be called 'proof'.
Lies. The standards of science have become more solid with every passing decade through all of human history with one exception: the crusades.
Quote:
ID is the irrational premise that Nature evidences design.
Fixed.
Quote:
To argue that a Designer follows from 'design' is a non sequitor.
No, it's an axiom. An absolute requirement. There can be no design without a designer. By definition. Period.
Quote:
1. Bacteria Flagellum as I'm sure you've heard 2. Light-sensing system in animal eyes, 3. Transport system within the cell 4. Blood Clotting System 5. Butterflies (Metamorphosis)
A brief google search shows every example given here torn apart by scientists.

 

I'm not interested in IC. My premise is with ID. Prove to me design does not exist.

The rules of science have changed. Can you provide me with the tests, and the evidence that prove, as scientific fact, that life "poofed" into existence with the first species, the SCA? I'll wait. Remember, this creature's existence is a scientific fact. Let's see the science please: the tests, the verification and the resulting evidence.

Thanks for the "fix". I see that truth is determined by what you believe to be truth. Not unlike Evolution Theory where the truth is determined before the evidence arrives; and if the evidence doesn't arrive, we just pretend it's true anyway.

If design requires a designer - other than Nature itself - then who is the "law-maker" behind the Law of Gravity?

I did a google search, and I haven't seen ID torn apart - just fanatics pretending it's "just Creationism".


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Mere wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Mere wrote:

There are a number of evidences for irreducibly complex systems, though you may wish to contend them. Ive posted a few in another post but here are a few.

1. Bacteria Flagellum as I'm sure you've heard

2. Light-sensing system in animal eyes,

3. Transport system within the cell

4. Blood Clotting System

5. Butterflies (Metamorphosis)

So your purportedly innocent OP was the expected venue of introducing long discredited claims of the crazy creationists regardless of what they are calling themselves this week.

No I am not going to debunk those again. The debunking can be easily googled. That you pretend you have something new is only pretending you are completely ignorant of the subject. You cannot claim an honest interest in the subject and not know those and all the rest were debunked as soon as the creationists produced them. You folks pretend to such ignorance to sneak into the discussion and then get so pissed when you are called ignorant.

Please find some place else for your simpleton tricks like a kindergarten.

To your response "So your purportedly... Week." No, I am just responding to your above post about a lack of evidence for irreducibly complex systems, a few of which I posted. Your argument claims no evidence for IC systems, but you do not support the claim because "the debunking can be easily goggled" - the information is readily available. Okay. However, it is still unclear as to your understanding of ID, and the basis on which you claim that there is a lack of evidence for IC systems. It would be appreciated if you could be more specific in how these systems have been debunked, what your understanding of ID is, on what basis these evidences systems have been debunked, and a more specific direction to these articles/evidences- we may have an entirely different understanding of ID.

ID is an attempt to promote creationism under another name. That is all there is do it. As you agree they have been debunked you have nothing left to propose. Finding problems does not negate a theory. All theories have problems. I am not going to waste time with such an unoriginal approach. If you do not know your approach has always failed then learn it on your own.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Mere wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Mere wrote:

1. What is your understanding of Intelligent Design?

I wear glasses. I know any designer of eyes is either malevolent or incompetent.

Quote:
2. What do you mean by "divine intervention as intervention can explain everything and thus explain nothing?

By definition a theory must explain ALL facts. Darwin explains more facts and does not need to invoke your malevolent/incompetent designer.

Quote:
3. How do you come to the conclusion that "Anyone who wears glasses.... idiot," as you are implying/claiming that the inverted eye is a flawed/bad design.

By knowing I have fired engineers who have come up with designs with fewer faults than human eyes. Would you buy a camera that stops focusing just because the lens got old? Or some asshole who chose glass that got cataracts? If you don't fire designers like that you go out of business. They are incompetent. Or they are secretly working for the competition and trying to ruin your business.

Quote:
4. What do you mean & can you expand on "intelligent is rejected because it does not explain facts?"

It cannot explain why all endoskeleton animals have four limbs? It cannot explain only one spine, or only lungs or bilateral symmetry or only one nose or only two eyes or or or [insert here a list of all other similarities]

#1 your response that you have glasses, thus implying poor intelligent design, is analogous to stating "my joints hurt"  - concluding poor design or "this soup is too spicy" -concluding the chef has poor skills/taste. This opinion can be entirely subjective, but also states nothing about your knowledge of what intelligent design is.

Could you please clarify your understanding of Intelligent Design?

I said it indicated malevolent or incompetent design. READ what i say. I will no respond to your misrepresentation of what I said.

Quote:
#2 How did you come to the conclusion that a "theory must explain all facts?" And that ID is an argument from ignorance or that it claims it explain all facts?

By definition a theory is an explanation of the facts. That is what the word means. If you ignorant of that, and apparently you are, you are incapable of participating in a discussion until you learn what words mean.

Quote:
#3 Cameras do get old and stop working, "glass that got cataracts" (humans who get glasses) or maintenance/parts for cameras are needed. These are the basis for your claims that the human eye is an inherently flawed design, but these claims are circumstantial; your analogy compares how time/external factors causes wear the the human eye rather than suggest why the eye is flawed -> why ID is an argument from ignorance/why an intelligent designer is "malevolent" or "incompetent."

To be more clear, IF one assumes the eye was designed THEN one can determine the nature of the designers. Do you have a problem with that?

Quote:
#4 Natural Selection does not claim why, it helps explain how. How did you come to the conclusion that ID explains why? What do you mean by Why?
 

By why I mean to say why is immaterial. That the mechanism does work and explains the fact of evolution is all that matters.

What you are trying to do is sell this idea and slide in the Christian god along with it. Sorry, if you should succeed you have not gotten beyond gods plural much less addressed which one or ones are responsible. You really are sort of wasting your time as with total success you still do not have what you hope to achieve.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Sockra Tease wrote:
I'm not interested in IC. My premise is with ID. Prove to me design does not exist.

Proving a negative? You do not understand logic either which is not a surprise. You claim there is design the burden is on you to produce evidence there is design. Your mere assertions your ramblings absent evidence.

Quote:
The rules of science have changed. Can you provide me with the tests, and the evidence that prove, as scientific fact, that life "poofed" into existence with the first species, the SCA? I'll wait. Remember, this creature's existence is a scientific fact. Let's see the science please: the tests, the verification and the resulting evidence.

So far you have demonstrated nothing but ignorance of science. What makes you think you are qualified to say anything about it must less be taken seriously?

Life exists therefore it is a fact. How it got started has nothing to do with evolution. But you are too ignorant to know that.

Next pretend to having a degree is a scientific field. I'll play the game.

Quote:
Thanks for the "fix". I see that truth is determined by what you believe to be truth. Not unlike Evolution Theory where the truth is determined before the evidence arrives; and if the evidence doesn't arrive, we just pretend it's true anyway.

Truth is an abstract noun for the reason that is has no physical existence. Evolution is a fact. The theory is a separate issue. The theory is not true. It merely explains the facts. Design explains no facts. The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.

Quote:
If design requires a designer - other than Nature itself - then who is the "law-maker" behind the Law of Gravity?

I did a google search, and I haven't seen ID torn apart - just fanatics pretending it's "just Creationism"

Nature as you use it is also an abstract noun. The use of Law as in gravity has no relationship to the use as in lawgiver. Are you deliberately confounding the usage as in lying or do not know they are different as in ignorant?

And it is just creationism as you have in the back of your head that you can sneak in the Yahweh god when the best you can possibly do is introduce all the gods of all history. You would still have all the religious claptrap to go through to narrow it down to just the one you prefer.

Because your objective is to bring in your god of choice it is in fact merely christian creationism.

Now if you are willing to go the Time Bandit routs and consider multiple designers (hint: that was the joke) it is not clear why you are avoiding discussing the different kinds of designs you see as evidence of many designers.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Sockra

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:
I'm not interested in IC. My premise is with ID. Prove to me design does not exist.

Proving a negative? You do not understand logic either which is not a surprise. You claim there is design the burden is on you to produce evidence there is design. Your mere assertions your ramblings absent evidence.

Quote:
The rules of science have changed. Can you provide me with the tests, and the evidence that prove, as scientific fact, that life "poofed" into existence with the first species, the SCA? I'll wait. Remember, this creature's existence is a scientific fact. Let's see the science please: the tests, the verification and the resulting evidence.

So far you have demonstrated nothing but ignorance of science. What makes you think you are qualified to say anything about it must less be taken seriously?

Life exists therefore it is a fact. How it got started has nothing to do with evolution. But you are too ignorant to know that.

Next pretend to having a degree is a scientific field. I'll play the game.

Quote:
Thanks for the "fix". I see that truth is determined by what you believe to be truth. Not unlike Evolution Theory where the truth is determined before the evidence arrives; and if the evidence doesn't arrive, we just pretend it's true anyway.

Truth is an abstract noun for the reason that is has no physical existence. Evolution is a fact. The theory is a separate issue. The theory is not true. It merely explains the facts. Design explains no facts. The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.

Quote:
If design requires a designer - other than Nature itself - then who is the "law-maker" behind the Law of Gravity?

I did a google search, and I haven't seen ID torn apart - just fanatics pretending it's "just Creationism"

Nature as you use it is also an abstract noun. The use of Law as in gravity has no relationship to the use as in lawgiver. Are you deliberately confounding the usage as in lying or do not know they are different as in ignorant?

And it is just creationism as you have in the back of your head that you can sneak in the Yahweh god when the best you can possibly do is introduce all the gods of all history. You would still have all the religious claptrap to go through to narrow it down to just the one you prefer.

Because your objective is to bring in your god of choice it is in fact merely christian creationism.

Now if you are willing to go the Time Bandit routs and consider multiple designers (hint: that was the joke) it is not clear why you are avoiding discussing the different kinds of designs you see as evidence of many designers.

You are a funny little creature you are. Your avatar picture is apt: it reveals the intellectual midget that you are. All you can muster for a response to rational points is ad hominem. Insult and ridicule. Is that the basis of your rationality?

At least it saves me time from trying to respond to your ranting replies. It is a waste of my time to deal with a raving intellectual dust-mite like you.

Why not come back to this thread when you grow up and develop an intelligence that can approach questions with rationality and civility.

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Sockra Tease wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:
I'm not interested in IC. My premise is with ID. Prove to me design does not exist.

Proving a negative? You do not understand logic either which is not a surprise. You claim there is design the burden is on you to produce evidence there is design. Your mere assertions your ramblings absent evidence.

Quote:
The rules of science have changed. Can you provide me with the tests, and the evidence that prove, as scientific fact, that life "poofed" into existence with the first species, the SCA? I'll wait. Remember, this creature's existence is a scientific fact. Let's see the science please: the tests, the verification and the resulting evidence.

So far you have demonstrated nothing but ignorance of science. What makes you think you are qualified to say anything about it must less be taken seriously?

Life exists therefore it is a fact. How it got started has nothing to do with evolution. But you are too ignorant to know that.

Next pretend to having a degree is a scientific field. I'll play the game.

Quote:
Thanks for the "fix". I see that truth is determined by what you believe to be truth. Not unlike Evolution Theory where the truth is determined before the evidence arrives; and if the evidence doesn't arrive, we just pretend it's true anyway.

Truth is an abstract noun for the reason that is has no physical existence. Evolution is a fact. The theory is a separate issue. The theory is not true. It merely explains the facts. Design explains no facts. The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.

Quote:
If design requires a designer - other than Nature itself - then who is the "law-maker" behind the Law of Gravity?

I did a google search, and I haven't seen ID torn apart - just fanatics pretending it's "just Creationism"

Nature as you use it is also an abstract noun. The use of Law as in gravity has no relationship to the use as in lawgiver. Are you deliberately confounding the usage as in lying or do not know they are different as in ignorant?

And it is just creationism as you have in the back of your head that you can sneak in the Yahweh god when the best you can possibly do is introduce all the gods of all history. You would still have all the religious claptrap to go through to narrow it down to just the one you prefer.

Because your objective is to bring in your god of choice it is in fact merely christian creationism.

Now if you are willing to go the Time Bandit routs and consider multiple designers (hint: that was the joke) it is not clear why you are avoiding discussing the different kinds of designs you see as evidence of many designers.

You are a funny little creature you are. Your avatar picture is apt: it reveals the intellectual midget that you are. All you can muster for a response to rational points is ad hominem. Insult and ridicule. Is that the basis of your rationality?

At least it saves me time from trying to respond to your ranting replies. It is a waste of my time to deal with a raving intellectual dust-mite like you.

Why not come back to this thread when you grow up and develop an intelligence that can approach questions with rationality and civility.

I observe you do not know the subject you pretend to discuss. That negates understanding of the subject. That is not what ad hominem means. Observing you do not know what ad hominem means is also a fact.

You cannot make a rational point because you do not understand the words you are using. That is also a correct observation not ad hominem. Examples are "prove a negative," assertion of an idea without evidence as fact, a profound lack of knowledge of science as demonstrated by misuse of scientific terms, not knowing what constitutes a scientific theory, assuming the concept of truth can be applied to a theory, fronting design without showing it explains more facts than Darwin's theory among other examples. Those examples are facts not ad hominem.

An example of ad hominem would be, you are wrong because you are religious. Ad hominem is raising an issue unrelated to the subject to negate the subject. I am negating your position on the subject because you do not understand the terms you are using to discuss the subject among other things. Are you able to see the difference?

An opinion of myself such as "It is a waste of my time to deal with a raving intellectual dust-mite like you." is attacking a subject unrelated to the subject being discussed and is an ad hominem attack.

As to motivation that you shoved in "lawgiver" singular which was adapted from the Greek for Solon and applied to Moses is where you bring in you religious objective. The religion part is also involved in the manner in which you deliberately mis-stated what I posted. Religion also appears in the manner of trying to introduce "why" in the same way that creationists try to use it to leave only one possible theological answer.

The very fact of using the term intelligent design shows the religious intent. Despite the attempt to separate ID from creationism the same people and the same organizations that were promoting creationism did little more than a global search and replace on the two terms. As an example your five (antique) issues are exactly the same as those where were used to promote creationism before the search and replace.

Are there any more questions?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Sockra

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:
I'm not interested in IC. My premise is with ID. Prove to me design does not exist.

Proving a negative? You do not understand logic either which is not a surprise. You claim there is design the burden is on you to produce evidence there is design. Your mere assertions your ramblings absent evidence.

Isn't that funny. And some atheists believe they have proved that god is a delusion and doesn't exist. They claim to have proved a negative.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
The rules of science have changed. Can you provide me with the tests, and the evidence that prove, as scientific fact, that life "poofed" into existence with the first species, the SCA? I'll wait. Remember, this creature's existence is a scientific fact. Let's see the science please: the tests, the verification and the resulting evidence.

So far you have demonstrated nothing but ignorance of science. What makes you think you are qualified to say anything about it must less be taken seriously?

I am qualified to study argument. What are you qualifications to examine argument and the validity of arguments? Do you have a philosophy degree? Where from?

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Life exists therefore it is a fact. How it got started has nothing to do with evolution. But you are too ignorant to know that.

Ad hominem. Plain as day. By the way some Evolutionists have already started life began by natural selection so you see some Evolutionists do approach abiogenesis with their own creation myth. You would know that if you read a bit more on the subject.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Next pretend to having a degree is a scientific field. I'll play the game.

Where did I pretend to have a degree in a scientific field? I see you are playing games. Care to use logic instead and start acting like a mature person?

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Truth is an abstract noun for the reason that is has no physical existence. Evolution is a fact. The theory is a separate issue. The theory is not true. It merely explains the facts. Design explains no facts. The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory being asserted as fact. If you ever study philosophy and logic you would see the distinction. "Design" is an inference made upon the facts. You obviously have an anatagonist's defintion of ID.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Nature as you use it is also an abstract noun. The use of Law as in gravity has no relationship to the use as in lawgiver. Are you deliberately confounding the usage as in lying or do not know they are different as in ignorant?

You clearly missed by point. The etymology of a word causes us to make inferences from that word. I used 'law' and 'law-maker' as an example of how people are treating the word 'design'. You are either pretending to be ignorant of my intention, or you just are ignorant. Study philosophy - it will sharpen your mind to these subtleties.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

And it is just creationism as you have in the back of your head that you can sneak in the Yahweh god when the best you can possibly do is introduce all the gods of all history. You would still have all the religious claptrap to go through to narrow it down to just the one you prefer.

Because your objective is to bring in your god of choice it is in fact merely christian creationism.

Now if you are willing to go the Time Bandit routs and consider multiple designers (hint: that was the joke) it is not clear why you are avoiding discussing the different kinds of designs you see as evidence of many designers.

I see you are quick to go to "conspiracy theory". I suppose you are too lazy to address the arguments and want to simply "go to the man." Why does rational discussion frighten you?

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I observe you do not know the subject you pretend to discuss. That negates understanding of the subject. That is not what ad hominem means. Observing you do not know what ad hominem means is also a fact.

You cannot make a rational point because you do not understand the words you are using. That is also a correct observation not ad hominem. Examples are "prove a negative," assertion of an idea without evidence as fact, a profound lack of knowledge of science as demonstrated by misuse of scientific terms, not knowing what constitutes a scientific theory, assuming the concept of truth can be applied to a theory, fronting design without showing it explains more facts than Darwin's theory among other examples. Those examples are facts not ad hominem.

An example of ad hominem would be, you are wrong because you are religious. Ad hominem is raising an issue unrelated to the subject to negate the subject. I am negating your position on the subject because you do not understand the terms you are using to discuss the subject among other things. Are you able to see the difference?

An opinion of myself such as "It is a waste of my time to deal with a raving intellectual dust-mite like you." is attacking a subject unrelated to the subject being discussed and is an ad hominem attack.

Your so-called facts are assertions intended to "go to the man". Please don't lie. You have a very limited definition of "ad hominem". But you can see how bringing up Creationism is ad hominem; bringing up "you are stupid" is ad hominem; bringing up "you don't know anything" is ad hominem. You avoid the issue by referring to irrelevant allegations about me. Again, study philosophy and see the wider term and you will be able to use it properly from now on.

You pretend I dismiss Evolution on grounds of science and then attempt to attack my background in science. You have trouble reading English. My arguments against Evolution are based on rational examination of the inferences made upon the science. That is a big distinction, but people uneducated in philosophy will not see that. You obviously missed it.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

As to motivation that you shoved in "lawgiver" singular which was adapted from the Greek for Solon and applied to Moses is where you bring in you religious objective. The religion part is also involved in the manner in which you deliberately mis-stated what I posted. Religion also appears in the manner of trying to introduce "why" in the same way that creationists try to use it to leave only one possible theological answer.

The very fact of using the term intelligent design shows the religious intent. Despite the attempt to separate ID from creationism the same people and the same organizations that were promoting creationism did little more than a global search and replace on the two terms. As an example your five (antique) issues are exactly the same as those where were used to promote creationism before the search and replace.

Are there any more questions?

More conspiracy theory. Notice how you don't even begin to address the points I made, but merely try to dismiss them as Creationism. I am a deist not a theist, and I am not a Creationist. I present a case, from rationality alone, for the viability of a non theistic 'design' intuition. The case can indeed be made. "Any more questions?" Yes - one: why are you avoiding a rational discussion and pretending I am a Creationist?

By the way...where is this evidence of an SCA that 'poofed' out of nowehere? I am still waiting. If Evolution is indeed fact, then you will have evidence that we came from a singular SCA.  You will have fossils too, and DNA analysis of those fossils too. I am waiting for the evidence of this major and fundamental premise of Evolution Theory. If it is science, you will have evidence. Where is it please?

Do you really understand the difference between a 'fact' and that which is 'asserted as fact'?

 


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Mere wrote: To SOCKRA

Mere wrote:

To SOCKRA TEASE's responses that "to argue that a Designer follows from 'design is a non sequitor" but also that "ID is the rational premise that Nature evidence design seem to be conflicting ideas, in that while you presented the analogy of gravity not requiring a designer or "Law-Maker," by concluding IC, one establishes/observes an object that exhibits Specified Complexity and thus infers design, "drawing from our knowledge that the only known source of Complex Specified Information (CSI) is an intelligent agent.

When we have something with CSI we logically conclude intelligent design- as naturalistic mechanism are unable to account for these biological CSI features, once again inferring design.

For example ... <snip> ...

 

My apologies for no direct reply to your reply here, but in complete honesty, I simply don't really understand the point being made here. You are suggesting my views are contradictory, but I'm not qute catching where the contradiction is. Mea culpa.

 

Mere wrote:

Also also stated was that "Two types of folks rely on this non sequitor: theists who WANT a designer, and pretend that design necessarily entails a designer, and folks who WANT to trash ID and pretend that design necessarily entails a designer'. Both camps are in error."

Some theists would say otherwise and argue that ID is actually an argument against their (G)god(s)- and cite an example such as the female reproductive system. That attributing (G)god to design would be attributing (G)god to error- i.e. number/amount of miscarriages.

 

I would find that a curious argument from theists, especially in Judao-Christian theism. The Book of Genesis outlines a reason why the female reproductive system is as it is - a punishment for Eve. If you buy into that creation story, you have your answer for the design (flaw?).

That is another example of how I believe the ancient writers were trying to explain things. Though they didn't have "Evolution Theory" back then, they also had the same intuition that we must be at the top of the ladder of Creation - just as today's Evolution Theory creation myth believes that homo sapien must be the ultimate in life-complexity (even though in some instances we are not). The writers wanted to understand why human procreation is a dangerous, messy, painful process where other species appear to have an easier time of it. Their answer of course was 'punishment' for a sin.

No, I think the theists have any "design complaints" covered by the concept of Original Sin. Personally, I don't attribute a moral dimension to a non-theistic concept of 'design'. Design is simply our perception of order, consistency, continuity, structure and so on... These things don't entirely exist "out there" but are created by our minds - just as the redness of an apple isn't 'out there', but it is true even so.

 


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
Sockra, the problem is that

Sockra, the problem is that as written Intelligent Design is pretty much just creationism trying to wear a lab coat. Part of the problem is that it starts out with a baseline assumption of entities being formed "Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers beaks wings, etc" From the book Of Pandas and People. The book was an intelligent design textbook originally meant to be a creationist one, in fact there were times where you could find things in the book where edits were done incorrectly IE Cdesign proponentsists. That alone would be a sign that there was a problem but let's actually look at part of the problem with intelligent design. The first big one is this, the claims of irreducible complexity fall apart when looking at examples, say for example the bacterial flagellum, it's actually similar to the bacterium for the bubonic plague, the syringe for that micro organism being fairly similar to the flagellum to the point where it isn't impossible to see a connection, different pressures and mutations reconfiguring the syringe into a tool for mobility.

This also goes into other issues, the design system used (if it exists) is actually very inefficient, our bodies have a LOT of design problems, things that would make sense as evolved beings since evolution is blind, it doesn't streamline so much as simply hack away. Traits which aid survival mean that I am more likely to reproduce thus the traits are likely to become more widespread. Traits that hinder me are less likely to help me reproduce, ergo they are likely to be bred out, though sometimes pressures change and requirements change. Were we a designed species our spines and eyes would be far better designed, the eye gives us our images backwards and is practically a rube golberg device, especially when compared to something actually engineered by human hands like a camera or telescope.

It's also worth noting that intelligent design also claims that speciation is impossible, even though when studying genetics there is clear evidence of a common ancestor, if you want to understand the earliest period, IE around the time that we currently hypothesize abiogenesis then the way to look at it is this, all of biology breaks down to chemistry, all life forms are in effect large and comparatively complex chemical reactions. Early reactions and mixtures may have created a biological entity, hell there are experiments right now that are looking at a prebiotic world looking at what might arise, it's even possible that we might have examples of abiogenesis in a lab some day. Most of what I've read talks about how early lifeforms from this period tended towards horizontal gene transfer rather than simple reproduction which came later. Though I'm not a biologist so I can't offer too much beyond that with any degree of confidence.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Sockra Tease wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:
I'm not interested in IC. My premise is with ID. Prove to me design does not exist.

Proving a negative? You do not understand logic either which is not a surprise. You claim there is design the burden is on you to produce evidence there is design. Your mere assertions your ramblings absent evidence.

Isn't that funny. And some atheists believe they have proved that god is a delusion and doesn't exist. They claim to have proved a negative.

The use of proof in that case would also be incorrent. Argument by false analogy is also illogical. "They do it too" and "Billy's mommy lets him do it" says nothing about your position.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
The rules of science have changed. Can you provide me with the tests, and the evidence that prove, as scientific fact, that life "poofed" into existence with the first species, the SCA? I'll wait. Remember, this creature's existence is a scientific fact. Let's see the science please: the tests, the verification and the resulting evidence.

So far you have demonstrated nothing but ignorance of science. What makes you think you are qualified to say anything about it must less be taken seriously?

I am qualified to study argument. What are you qualifications to examine argument and the validity of arguments? Do you have a philosophy degree? Where from?

As evolution is a science and I do have a degree in physics and as philosophy is irrelevant to science I do not see your point. (U Cincinnati, 1967) But such an approach is appeal to authority which is also illogical.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Life exists therefore it is a fact. How it got started has nothing to do with evolution. But you are too ignorant to know that.

Ad hominem. Plain as day. By the way some Evolutionists have already started life began by natural selection so you see some Evolutionists do approach abiogenesis with their own creation myth. You would know that if you read a bit more on the subject.

So you are ignorant also. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. That you are ignorant of that fact is fact not ad hominem. It is at worst impolite to be so blunt about it.

But if you can quote evolutionary scientists who have done as you claim you are free to post that and show it is i who am ignorant. Unlike stupidity, ignorance can be remedied. Everyone is ignorant of most things.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Next pretend to having a degree is a scientific field. I'll play the game.

Where did I pretend to have a degree in a scientific field? I see you are playing games. Care to use logic instead and start acting like a mature person?

So instead of claiming a science degree a philosophy degree is claimed as evidence of authority rather than demonstrating you can analyze an argument. Your error was not understanding scientific reasoning is not amenable to philosophy. Scientific reasoning is bound by physical evidence and successful application. OTOH philosophy is not bound by being a correct description of physical reality. Were philosophy like science there could be only one philosophy and there would be testable ways of eliminating the erronious ones. As you should have learned that is not the nature of philosophy.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Truth is an abstract noun for the reason that is has no physical existence. Evolution is a fact. The theory is a separate issue. The theory is not true. It merely explains the facts. Design explains no facts. The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory being asserted as fact. If you ever study philosophy and logic you would see the distinction. "Design" is an inference made upon the facts. You obviously have an anatagonist's defintion of ID.

Here you demonstrate your inablity going beyond ignorance to separate facts from explanation of facts.

The fact of evolution is that the older fossils the more different they are from species today. Are you saying that is not correct? if so please explain.

Darwin's theory is an explanation for the differences in fossils.

Design, ID as the subject puts it, does not explain the fossil record therefore it is not a theory. So please do not try to change from theory to inference.

Far from antagonistic I hold it to its claims, ID Theory. Show me how ID explains all the changes and all the similarities in the fossil record to the same extent as Darwin's theory BEFORE jumping to the few long debunked examples which have been fronted here. The ball is in your court.

If you want to try to jump to inference, fine. So what? Inferences are a dime a dozen. Correct ones are not so cheap.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Nature as you use it is also an abstract noun. The use of Law as in gravity has no relationship to the use as in lawgiver. Are you deliberately confounding the usage as in lying or do not know they are different as in ignorant?

You clearly missed by point. The etymology of a word causes us to make inferences from that word. I used 'law' and 'law-maker' as an example of how people are treating the word 'design'. You are either pretending to be ignorant of my intention, or you just are ignorant. Study philosophy - it will sharpen your mind to these subtleties.

IF you knew of the original meaning of Law as in of Gravity you would know better. Inferences from words are not permitted and generally foolish to try. Whatever the words or names it is only the math that matters.

And did you miss where I corrected the discussion by pointing out Newton's contribution was that Galileo's work applied to the planets? It had nothing to do with things on earth falling down.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

And it is just creationism as you have in the back of your head that you can sneak in the Yahweh god when the best you can possibly do is introduce all the gods of all history. You would still have all the religious claptrap to go through to narrow it down to just the one you prefer.

Because your objective is to bring in your god of choice it is in fact merely christian creationism.

Now if you are willing to go the Time Bandit routs and consider multiple designers (hint: that was the joke) it is not clear why you are avoiding discussing the different kinds of designs you see as evidence of many designers.

I see you are quick to go to "conspiracy theory". I suppose you are too lazy to address the arguments and want to simply "go to the man." Why does rational discussion frighten you?

Of course there is a conspiracy. There are entire websites devoted to it. There are religion based groups publicly promoting it. There have been court cases promoting it. What do you think that is if not a conspiracy?

To repeat, if it is a theory then it can only address facts. Arguments are worthless.

Should you folks ever become able to rationally discuss facts vs theory by learning the difference between the two feel free to get back to me. It is impossible to have a rational, scientific discussion with people who do not understand the scientific meanings of the terms they are misusing.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I observe you do not know the subject you pretend to discuss. That negates understanding of the subject. That is not what ad hominem means. Observing you do not know what ad hominem means is also a fact.

You cannot make a rational point because you do not understand the words you are using. That is also a correct observation not ad hominem. Examples are "prove a negative," assertion of an idea without evidence as fact, a profound lack of knowledge of science as demonstrated by misuse of scientific terms, not knowing what constitutes a scientific theory, assuming the concept of truth can be applied to a theory, fronting design without showing it explains more facts than Darwin's theory among other examples. Those examples are facts not ad hominem.

An example of ad hominem would be, you are wrong because you are religious. Ad hominem is raising an issue unrelated to the subject to negate the subject. I am negating your position on the subject because you do not understand the terms you are using to discuss the subject among other things. Are you able to see the difference?

An opinion of myself such as "It is a waste of my time to deal with a raving intellectual dust-mite like you." is attacking a subject unrelated to the subject being discussed and is an ad hominem attack.

Your so-called facts are assertions intended to "go to the man". Please don't lie.

When talking science pointing out and error is no more ad hominem than pointing out an error in arithmetic. Should a person insist their sum is correct despite it being demonstrably wrong that is clearly ignorance of arithmetic. In this post you have demonstrated ignorance of the difference between scientific theory and fact. In science theory has a different meaning that what Homes says to Watson.

Quote:
You have a very limited definition of "ad hominem". But you can see how bringing up Creationism is ad hominem; bringing up "you are stupid" is ad hominem; bringing up "you don't know anything" is ad hominem. You avoid the issue by referring to irrelevant allegations about me. Again, study philosophy and see the wider term and you will be able to use it properly from now on.

If a person does not know the subject as you clearly do not it is a fact. It may be impolite to bring it up but it is not declaring one is wrong for an unrelated reason. I thought I was careful to distinguish ignorant from stupid. Where do you think I erred?

Long ago the name was changed from natural philosophy to science to get away from the bad influence. There is no need to study philosophy as it is irrelvant to science. Whatever it means by ad hominem is immaterial. Anything I have done is in the sense of science where there be only one correct theory. You can look at facts any way you want if you are not a scientist. That is of no concern to science or scientists.

If you want to talk science you use the terms of science in their scientific meanings. Nothing else is acceptable.

Quote:
You pretend I dismiss Evolution on grounds of science and then attempt to attack my background in science. You have trouble reading English. My arguments against Evolution are based on rational examination of the inferences made upon the science. That is a big distinction, but people uneducated in philosophy will not see that. You obviously missed it.

And as you have demonstrated you do not know the difference between the fact of evolution and the theories of evolution how do you think it possible for me to take you seriously? You are posting scientific gibberish. It is not possible to take you seriously.

If i were to talk about Plato's cave as a philosophy of photographic lighting you probably would not notice I was doing a parody.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

As to motivation that you shoved in "lawgiver" singular which was adapted from the Greek for Solon and applied to Moses is where you bring in you religious objective. The religion part is also involved in the manner in which you deliberately mis-stated what I posted. Religion also appears in the manner of trying to introduce "why" in the same way that creationists try to use it to leave only one possible theological answer.

The very fact of using the term intelligent design shows the religious intent. Despite the attempt to separate ID from creationism the same people and the same organizations that were promoting creationism did little more than a global search and replace on the two terms. As an example your five (antique) issues are exactly the same as those where were used to promote creationism before the search and replace.

Are there any more questions?

More conspiracy theory. Notice how you don't even begin to address the points I made, but merely try to dismiss them as Creationism. I am a deist not a theist, and I am not a Creationist. I present a case, from rationality alone, for the viability of a non theistic 'design' intuition. The case can indeed be made. "Any more questions?" Yes - one: why are you avoiding a rational discussion and pretending I am a Creationist?

IF you had known the original meaning of Law as in Gravity you would have known there can be no inference of lawgiver. Here I gave you the benefit of the doubt of actually knowing the meaning and then showed how it was a deliberate perversion of the word law. So which do you want? Ignorant or lying? Your call.

Quote:
By the way...where is this evidence of an SCA that 'poofed' out of nowehere? I am still waiting.

How should I know where you got that idea? Why do you think there is evidence for something you invented?

Quote:
If Evolution is indeed fact, then you will have evidence that we came from a singular SCA.  You will have fossils too, and DNA analysis of those fossils too.

Here is another place you can choose ignorant or lying. Are you ignorant of the fact that the fact of evolution is solely based upon the fossil record? Or are you lying in pretending it requires much more than the fossil record? Again, your call.

Quote:
I am waiting for the evidence of this major and fundamental premise of Evolution Theory. If it is science, you will have evidence. Where is it please?

Again you misuse the term. Is it from ignorance or lie?

Quote:
Do you really understand the difference between a 'fact' and that which is 'asserted as fact'?

I understand you do not know what the word means in science. That is demonstrated by you (ignorantly? maliciously? stupidly?) calling a scientific theory a fact.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Sockra Tease wrote:I'm not

Sockra Tease wrote:
I'm not interested in IC

Then 1: Why'd say it was never proven wrong when it was?
and 2: You do know that IC is part of ID don't you? Not caring about it is delicious irony.

Quote:
My premise is with ID. Prove to me design does not exist.

Burden is on you, the one making the claim, not me, the one disputing it.

Quote:
The rules of science have changed.

Not in the last few hundred years.

Quote:
Can you provide me with the tests, and the evidence that prove, as scientific fact, that life "poofed" into existence with the first species, the SCA?

I never claimed that happened. Why should I prove something I don't believe and never claimed?

Quote:
If design requires a designer - other than Nature itself - then who is the "law-maker" behind the Law of Gravity?

Isaac Newton came up with the theory of gravity. It is not a law, it is a theory. Just like evolution. Not that I'd expect a brainwashed theist to understand simple facts.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
My definition of Creationism...

Creationism is when a group of primitive primates decide to declare war on reality with blunt weapons...

Behe, in his Dover testimony was forced to admit that his version of what a theory is would also encompass astrology. He also had to admit that there was no peer reviewed documentation or scientifically valid evidence whatsoever for ID or for that matter, IC...

Behe is the butt of the joke in the biological community, his works are picked apart by undergrads regularly as prime examples of bad research and his own University Biology Department (he gained tenure BEFORE his 'works' were published) have put up a web page by way of disclaimer.

I love the way it all devolves (cute, huh?) into a semantic game of word salad. We say 'creation' that PROVES there is a creator, and of course if there are LAWS there must be a 'Law Giver'... very, very dumb.

 

LC >;-}>

 

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Sockra Tease

Vastet wrote:
Sockra Tease wrote:
I'm not interested in IC
Then 1: Why'd say it was never proven wrong when it was? and 2: You do know that IC is part of ID don't you? Not caring about it is delicious irony.
Quote:
My premise is with ID. Prove to me design does not exist.
Burden is on you, the one making the claim, not me, the one disputing it.
Quote:
The rules of science have changed.
Not in the last few hundred years.
Quote:
Can you provide me with the tests, and the evidence that prove, as scientific fact, that life "poofed" into existence with the first species, the SCA?
I never claimed that happened. Why should I prove something I don't believe and never claimed?
Quote:
If design requires a designer - other than Nature itself - then who is the "law-maker" behind the Law of Gravity?
Isaac Newton came up with the theory of gravity. It is not a law, it is a theory. Just like evolution. Not that I'd expect a brainwashed theist to understand simple facts.

 

It was not proven false. You simply claim it was. IC is a word game of specifying whether a system is reducible or not. ID does not stand or fall on the side issue of IC, that is why it doesn't concern me. I am concerned with the rationality, or no, of the inference of intelligent design. I consider it a viable inference as it provides the basis for intuition of order and consistency. I have met my burden: order points to design. A vaccine is effective over time with consistency because of order and design. If ALL is mere chance, vaccines would only be effective every so often and then only by accident.

The rules of Science have changed. Evolution Theory posits things, which have no evidence in nature, as proven fact. Show me evidence of the common ancestor between chimp and man. Show me how many chromosome pairs he has that distingishes him from chimp/ape and man.

As for life poofing into existence, why do you not approach Evolutionists with their irrationality when they claim Evolution explains all about Life, including how it came to be. That is Dawkins' position.

You obviously want to play games and deliberately miss my point about the etymology of words and how they influence our thinking. The LAW of Gravity was the LAW for a very long time. We can see why the word was changed.

You are pretty dishonest when it comes to intellectual integrity. Come back to the thread when you grow up.

 

 

 


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Creationism is when a group of primitive primates decide to declare war on reality with blunt weapons...

Behe, in his Dover testimony was forced to admit that his version of what a theory is would also encompass astrology. He also had to admit that there was no peer reviewed documentation or scientifically valid evidence whatsoever for ID or for that matter, IC...

Behe is the butt of the joke in the biological community, his works are picked apart by undergrads regularly as prime examples of bad research and his own University Biology Department (he gained tenure BEFORE his 'works' were published) have put up a web page by way of disclaimer.

I love the way it all devolves (cute, huh?) into a semantic game of word salad. We say 'creation' that PROVES there is a creator, and of course if there are LAWS there must be a 'Law Giver'... very, very dumb.

 

LC >;-}>

 

Much obliged for your asinine definition. I seem to be finding "dumb" in quite a few places on this Forum.


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Sockra Tease wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:
I'm not interested in IC. My premise is with ID. Prove to me design does not exist.

Proving a negative? You do not understand logic either which is not a surprise. You claim there is design the burden is on you to produce evidence there is design. Your mere assertions your ramblings absent evidence.

Isn't that funny. And some atheists believe they have proved that god is a delusion and doesn't exist. They claim to have proved a negative.

The use of proof in that case would also be incorrent. Argument by false analogy is also illogical. "They do it too" and "Billy's mommy lets him do it" says nothing about your position.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
The rules of science have changed. Can you provide me with the tests, and the evidence that prove, as scientific fact, that life "poofed" into existence with the first species, the SCA? I'll wait. Remember, this creature's existence is a scientific fact. Let's see the science please: the tests, the verification and the resulting evidence.

So far you have demonstrated nothing but ignorance of science. What makes you think you are qualified to say anything about it must less be taken seriously?

I am qualified to study argument. What are you qualifications to examine argument and the validity of arguments? Do you have a philosophy degree? Where from?

As evolution is a science and I do have a degree in physics and as philosophy is irrelevant to science I do not see your point. (U Cincinnati, 1967) But such an approach is appeal to authority which is also illogical.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Life exists therefore it is a fact. How it got started has nothing to do with evolution. But you are too ignorant to know that.

Ad hominem. Plain as day. By the way some Evolutionists have already started life began by natural selection so you see some Evolutionists do approach abiogenesis with their own creation myth. You would know that if you read a bit more on the subject.

So you are ignorant also. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. That you are ignorant of that fact is fact not ad hominem. It is at worst impolite to be so blunt about it.

But if you can quote evolutionary scientists who have done as you claim you are free to post that and show it is i who am ignorant. Unlike stupidity, ignorance can be remedied. Everyone is ignorant of most things.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Next pretend to having a degree is a scientific field. I'll play the game.

Where did I pretend to have a degree in a scientific field? I see you are playing games. Care to use logic instead and start acting like a mature person?

So instead of claiming a science degree a philosophy degree is claimed as evidence of authority rather than demonstrating you can analyze an argument. Your error was not understanding scientific reasoning is not amenable to philosophy. Scientific reasoning is bound by physical evidence and successful application. OTOH philosophy is not bound by being a correct description of physical reality. Were philosophy like science there could be only one philosophy and there would be testable ways of eliminating the erronious ones. As you should have learned that is not the nature of philosophy.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Truth is an abstract noun for the reason that is has no physical existence. Evolution is a fact. The theory is a separate issue. The theory is not true. It merely explains the facts. Design explains no facts. The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory being asserted as fact. If you ever study philosophy and logic you would see the distinction. "Design" is an inference made upon the facts. You obviously have an anatagonist's defintion of ID.

Here you demonstrate your inablity going beyond ignorance to separate facts from explanation of facts.

The fact of evolution is that the older fossils the more different they are from species today. Are you saying that is not correct? if so please explain.

Darwin's theory is an explanation for the differences in fossils.

Design, ID as the subject puts it, does not explain the fossil record therefore it is not a theory. So please do not try to change from theory to inference.

Far from antagonistic I hold it to its claims, ID Theory. Show me how ID explains all the changes and all the similarities in the fossil record to the same extent as Darwin's theory BEFORE jumping to the few long debunked examples which have been fronted here. The ball is in your court.

If you want to try to jump to inference, fine. So what? Inferences are a dime a dozen. Correct ones are not so cheap.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Nature as you use it is also an abstract noun. The use of Law as in gravity has no relationship to the use as in lawgiver. Are you deliberately confounding the usage as in lying or do not know they are different as in ignorant?

You clearly missed by point. The etymology of a word causes us to make inferences from that word. I used 'law' and 'law-maker' as an example of how people are treating the word 'design'. You are either pretending to be ignorant of my intention, or you just are ignorant. Study philosophy - it will sharpen your mind to these subtleties.

IF you knew of the original meaning of Law as in of Gravity you would know better. Inferences from words are not permitted and generally foolish to try. Whatever the words or names it is only the math that matters.

And did you miss where I corrected the discussion by pointing out Newton's contribution was that Galileo's work applied to the planets? It had nothing to do with things on earth falling down.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

And it is just creationism as you have in the back of your head that you can sneak in the Yahweh god when the best you can possibly do is introduce all the gods of all history. You would still have all the religious claptrap to go through to narrow it down to just the one you prefer.

Because your objective is to bring in your god of choice it is in fact merely christian creationism.

Now if you are willing to go the Time Bandit routs and consider multiple designers (hint: that was the joke) it is not clear why you are avoiding discussing the different kinds of designs you see as evidence of many designers.

I see you are quick to go to "conspiracy theory". I suppose you are too lazy to address the arguments and want to simply "go to the man." Why does rational discussion frighten you?

Of course there is a conspiracy. There are entire websites devoted to it. There are religion based groups publicly promoting it. There have been court cases promoting it. What do you think that is if not a conspiracy?

To repeat, if it is a theory then it can only address facts. Arguments are worthless.

Should you folks ever become able to rationally discuss facts vs theory by learning the difference between the two feel free to get back to me. It is impossible to have a rational, scientific discussion with people who do not understand the scientific meanings of the terms they are misusing.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I observe you do not know the subject you pretend to discuss. That negates understanding of the subject. That is not what ad hominem means. Observing you do not know what ad hominem means is also a fact.

You cannot make a rational point because you do not understand the words you are using. That is also a correct observation not ad hominem. Examples are "prove a negative," assertion of an idea without evidence as fact, a profound lack of knowledge of science as demonstrated by misuse of scientific terms, not knowing what constitutes a scientific theory, assuming the concept of truth can be applied to a theory, fronting design without showing it explains more facts than Darwin's theory among other examples. Those examples are facts not ad hominem.

An example of ad hominem would be, you are wrong because you are religious. Ad hominem is raising an issue unrelated to the subject to negate the subject. I am negating your position on the subject because you do not understand the terms you are using to discuss the subject among other things. Are you able to see the difference?

An opinion of myself such as "It is a waste of my time to deal with a raving intellectual dust-mite like you." is attacking a subject unrelated to the subject being discussed and is an ad hominem attack.

Your so-called facts are assertions intended to "go to the man". Please don't lie.

When talking science pointing out and error is no more ad hominem than pointing out an error in arithmetic. Should a person insist their sum is correct despite it being demonstrably wrong that is clearly ignorance of arithmetic. In this post you have demonstrated ignorance of the difference between scientific theory and fact. In science theory has a different meaning that what Homes says to Watson.

Quote:
You have a very limited definition of "ad hominem". But you can see how bringing up Creationism is ad hominem; bringing up "you are stupid" is ad hominem; bringing up "you don't know anything" is ad hominem. You avoid the issue by referring to irrelevant allegations about me. Again, study philosophy and see the wider term and you will be able to use it properly from now on.

If a person does not know the subject as you clearly do not it is a fact. It may be impolite to bring it up but it is not declaring one is wrong for an unrelated reason. I thought I was careful to distinguish ignorant from stupid. Where do you think I erred?

Long ago the name was changed from natural philosophy to science to get away from the bad influence. There is no need to study philosophy as it is irrelvant to science. Whatever it means by ad hominem is immaterial. Anything I have done is in the sense of science where there be only one correct theory. You can look at facts any way you want if you are not a scientist. That is of no concern to science or scientists.

If you want to talk science you use the terms of science in their scientific meanings. Nothing else is acceptable.

Quote:
You pretend I dismiss Evolution on grounds of science and then attempt to attack my background in science. You have trouble reading English. My arguments against Evolution are based on rational examination of the inferences made upon the science. That is a big distinction, but people uneducated in philosophy will not see that. You obviously missed it.

And as you have demonstrated you do not know the difference between the fact of evolution and the theories of evolution how do you think it possible for me to take you seriously? You are posting scientific gibberish. It is not possible to take you seriously.

If i were to talk about Plato's cave as a philosophy of photographic lighting you probably would not notice I was doing a parody.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

As to motivation that you shoved in "lawgiver" singular which was adapted from the Greek for Solon and applied to Moses is where you bring in you religious objective. The religion part is also involved in the manner in which you deliberately mis-stated what I posted. Religion also appears in the manner of trying to introduce "why" in the same way that creationists try to use it to leave only one possible theological answer.

The very fact of using the term intelligent design shows the religious intent. Despite the attempt to separate ID from creationism the same people and the same organizations that were promoting creationism did little more than a global search and replace on the two terms. As an example your five (antique) issues are exactly the same as those where were used to promote creationism before the search and replace.

Are there any more questions?

More conspiracy theory. Notice how you don't even begin to address the points I made, but merely try to dismiss them as Creationism. I am a deist not a theist, and I am not a Creationist. I present a case, from rationality alone, for the viability of a non theistic 'design' intuition. The case can indeed be made. "Any more questions?" Yes - one: why are you avoiding a rational discussion and pretending I am a Creationist?

IF you had known the original meaning of Law as in Gravity you would have known there can be no inference of lawgiver. Here I gave you the benefit of the doubt of actually knowing the meaning and then showed how it was a deliberate perversion of the word law. So which do you want? Ignorant or lying? Your call.

Quote:
By the way...where is this evidence of an SCA that 'poofed' out of nowehere? I am still waiting.

How should I know where you got that idea? Why do you think there is evidence for something you invented?

Quote:
If Evolution is indeed fact, then you will have evidence that we came from a singular SCA.  You will have fossils too, and DNA analysis of those fossils too.

Here is another place you can choose ignorant or lying. Are you ignorant of the fact that the fact of evolution is solely based upon the fossil record? Or are you lying in pretending it requires much more than the fossil record? Again, your call.

Quote:
I am waiting for the evidence of this major and fundamental premise of Evolution Theory. If it is science, you will have evidence. Where is it please?

Again you misuse the term. Is it from ignorance or lie?

Quote:
Do you really understand the difference between a 'fact' and that which is 'asserted as fact'?

I understand you do not know what the word means in science. That is demonstrated by you (ignorantly? maliciously? stupidly?) calling a scientific theory a fact.

So you have a degree in science but no degree in how to make valid inferences or a degree that has allowed you to study logic. I'm supposed to believe all your arguments on Evolution Theory are sound and valid...because you have a degree..... in Physics????  I wonder how many "degree'd" scientists and experts put thalidamide out on the market as a safe drug?

But you're right... it's an appeal to authority and illogical. As I have a degree in philosophy I think I can speak to any analysis of argument, and as I said before I look at remarks made by Evolutionists with an eye to their logic and rationality. I don't dispute the biology or the real science.

Dawkins clearly states that Evolution explains Life. If you dispute that Evolution explains Life, then we are agreed.

I also agree that science is bound by evidence. Where is the evidence for the common ancestor between chimp and man, and how many chromosome pairs does this ancestor have to make the distinction?

ID is not a replacement for ET. If the mechanisms of ET are ever shown to be true, which is to say if science ever uncovers actual evidence, then ET's mechanisms are just an example of the design of Life. Darwin had no idea about DNA. Darwin saw similarities and inferred common ancestry. We now know that that commonality is DNA. We unfortunately still hang on to notions of direct descent. That requires independent proof BEFORE we declare it to be proven fact. DNA homology does not prove descent.

"...IF you knew of the original meaning of Law as in of Gravity you would know better. Inferences from words are not permitted and generally foolish to try. Whatever the words or names it is only the math that matters."

I agree. Inferences from words are not permitted. The inference of 'designer' from design should not be permitted either. Of course, the reason "law" is being replaced is just for that reason: it implies a law-maker, so we prefer "theory" of gravity. All I am saying is that "designer" is inferred merely from the word, such that it is as silly to infer designer from design as it would be to infer a Divine Theory-Maker from the word Theory. I am just saying it is a non sequitor, and only two people do this: Creationists and anti-ID campaigners.

I will not address the remaining ad hominem parts of your last post. Your allegations that I misuse terms is only a mendacious distraction to allow you to avoid my points.

Why not address my request for the scientific evidence for this common ancestor of chimp and man. Let's get that out the way first.

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Sockra Tease wrote:It was

Sockra Tease wrote:
It was not proven false.

It was, unless or until you or someone else can provide an example of it in nature. So far noone has.

Quote:
I am concerned with the rationality, or no, of the inference of intelligent design.

Yes, you are indeed inferring the idea that there is design. Yet noone has ever shown any example of design. In fact, the universe is counter to the idea of design. It serves no purpose. It is chaotic and self destructive.

Quote:
I have met my burden: order points to design.

You have not. Your concept of order is based on your primitive senses and uneducated understanding of spacetime. There is no order. The universe is burning itself out at an exponentially growing rate. The fact that we even have the illusion of order is because of our ridiculously short lifetimes.

The rest was just the same old theist garbage already refuted, with more fallacies and an ad hominem.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.