|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is needed for creationists to connect evidence to valid conclusions | |||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
molbiogirl
I think he has it scheduled somewhere around the time of the second coming.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
2x dx= x2+ c evaluate at x=x1 and at x=x2 and take the difference to determine the input between x1 and x2 Δ{x2+ c}(x= x1→x2) = x12 + c - x22 - c = x12 - x22 Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Instead of discussing the topic's premise, creationists seem to prefer providing additional examples of it in real time!
If no creationists are really interested in discussing the thread's topic then I don't care very much how far the thread drifts, but I guess I do think it would be a good idea if we stopped responding to total evasions and unintelligible propositions. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I seem to recall that Ray set a date back in January 2006. He advised us it would be here by April...2006. Apparently 18 months worth of unforeseen work was needed to be done so we can be assured that it will be of the highest quality.
abe: and what Percy said above. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
At one point in the discussion a request was made for examples of ID, and the reply was a napkin and a wristwatch. It would be interesting (and on topic!) to see a presentation of the chain of evidence and argument that leads from "human beings design and manufacture napkins and wristwatches" to arrive at the conclusion "therefore an intelligent agent designed and manufactured life on earth."
Another way to approach the topic would be to ask how ID could be used to determine whether an ancient stone tool from the stone age had been designed and crafted, or if it was simply chosen because it had the right shape. There is a class of ancient stone grinding/crushing tools that though obviously used for this purpose, show little or no evidence of any crafting into their shape. Paleoanthropologists argue about whether the evidence of crafting is just too subtle given the technology then available, or whether the stone tool was chosen because it already had the right shape, and then through wear during use became even more appropriately shaped. This is precisely the problem that people like Dembski, Gitt and Spetner have claimed to solve, being able to determine design simply by inspection of the design itself without any evidence of tooling and so forth. So how would IDists use their science to tell whether the stone had been modified or simply chosen? The same question can be asked of complex biological molecules, and I did already ask this question a couple times. How does the science of ID tell the difference between a natural complex molecule and a designed one? What all these questions have in common is that their answer would provide an example of creationists connecting the dots between evidence and conclusion, something that the premise of this thread denies that they do. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
It would be interesting (and on topic!) to see a presentation of the chain of evidence and argument that leads from "human beings design and manufacture napkins and wristwatches" to arrive at the conclusion "therefore an intelligent agent designed and manufactured life on earth."
Obviously, they are using induction and gross extrapolation. I have argued against both in other threads. I didn't get much support. According to the convention wisdom, science advances by such methods. It is clear from these earlier discussions, that most scientists here accept the conventional wisdom, or at least that they are unwilling to challenge it and will criticize attempts to challenge it. Science doesn't work the way that scientific epistemology says it works. It doesn't work the way many scientists think it works. The traditions of epistemology originated at a much earlier era, a time when creationist thinking was dominant. Roughly speaking, epistemology is an account of how science would work if creationism were correct. As long as traditional epistemology remains the conventional wisdom as to how science works, you will see the kind of thinking that bothers you. Let's end the political smears
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
2x dx= x2+ c evaluate at x=x1 and at x=x2 and take the difference to determine the input between x1 and x2 Δ{x2+ c}(x= x1→x2) = x12 + c - x22 - c = x12 - x22 Enjoy. oy, that's what i get for trying to be funny.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
oy, that's what i get for trying to be funny. Actually I thought it was a pretty good analogy
2x dx= x2 + god evaluate at x=x1 and at x=x2 and take the difference to determine the input between x1 and x2 Δ{x2 + god}(x= x1→x2) = x12 + god - x22 - god = x12 - x22 Where x22 - god = x12 - x22 is what we can determine with science but we can't solve for the exact solution 2x dx= x2 + god So, unless we can solve for the god factor, what we can do with science is limited to getting from x1 to x2. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : . we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ThreeDogs Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 77 From: noli me calcare Joined: |
quote:Are you talking evolution or origins? I see no connection one vis a vis the other. Other than the latter had to happen for the former to proceed. You have no prove for origin, and often fall flat on your theories in evolution. It's fun to watch it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5900 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
...and often fall flat on your theories in evolution. It's fun to watch it. In what sense, O' Multiple Doggish One, do evilutionists "fall flat" on the theory?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In what sense, O' Multiple Doggish One, do evilutionists "fall flat" on the theory? Why, when they fail to answer posts like this one in the expected manner. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Are you talking evolution or origins? ... Other than the latter had to happen for the former to proceed. Okay, for the sake of the argument, let's assume that the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago, complete with all the "natural laws" that science determines to exist, and in absolutely no need for further tinkering ... a Deist creation. How does this mean that evolution cannot proceed? If - on the other hand - all you mean is that there must have been an origin for evolution to proceed (natural OR supernatural doesn't matter) then all you have done is stated something rather trivial: we exist, therefore there was some kind of origin.
You have no prove for origin,... Nobody has a proof for origin. Therefore this is not a special criticism of science. What we can do is start with the present and work backwards through the evidence to see what we can understand, and what concepts are invalid. We can show that the earth is not flat for instance. Most people will agree with this, however there are some "flat-earthers" that have trouble accepting this fact, and this comes back to the topic -- how do you connect evidence to valid conclusions? How do you validate concepts and ideas? Do you test them against evidence of objective reality or do you compare them to previous concepts, preconceptions? Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024