|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Science in Creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
We don't need to point to the stamped information on the mug, we can tell it's the product of design just by looking at it -- or recognizing its function -- and we can tell the same from objects found in an archaeological dig I think you are exaggerating what can be done. Speaking of arrowheads, can you tell the difference between a sharp edge formed by erosion or formed by a chance falling rock smashing against other rocks and a similar rock with a sharp edge formed by deliberate chipping away using tools? How would you do such a thing? Can you be sure of the source of any particular rock arrowhead simply by knowing that somebody affixed the sharp edge to a stick as the tip of an arrow? Jar's claim is that we do so by recognizing tool marks on the arrowhead and not simply by recognizing function. I think he is right. And of course we know what pottery is before we find shards of it at a dig. We can recognized marks showing how it was turned and possibly even an exterior indicating that it was fired or colored.
and we can tell the same from objects found in an archaeological dig: a pile of bones is easily distinguished from a clay vessel And by so doing are you distinguishing between something designed and something not designed? Is this really the example you mean it to be? Are you saying that one of those two things is not designed? Or are you pointing out the obvious idea that bones are not made out of clay. Dawn claims that science uses indirect evidence, something that is a correct statement, but that we don't allow him to do so, a statement this incorrect. What is not being allowed is to have Dawn just claim that science allows simply asserting that he knows something using neither indirect or direct evidence. The requirement to use science is limitation Dawn has imposed and is the point of this thread. In short, it is beside the question whether you or Dawn can do what you claim. The question is instead whether or not doing so is science. You are right when you say that you'll never be able to prove that living things bear the stamp of design. To the best of my knowledge nobody who has claimed to do this scientifically has managed the task.
Best I can do with your efforts here. You've done far better than Dawn. Perhaps with your encouragement he can do better. You've pointed to a key point of dispute. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
than demand that I provide absolute proof of mine I made no demands for anything but clear communication.
So please explain how I'm incoherent in these argument I cannot understand anything you write, but I yield, I am through trying.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There are no doubt some objects that are hard to identify as designed or not but they would be the extreme exceptions. Sometimes nature comes up with an interesting fluke. Those we can just lay aside to figure out later. The vast majority of examples are not hard to identify at all.
You are right when you say that you'll never be able to prove that living things bear the stamp of design. To the best of my knowledge nobody who has claimed to do this scientifically has managed the task. I think the point Dawn is trying to make is that evolutionists don't expect to have to prove "scientifically" that evolution can design as well as a designer: all you have to do is point to microevolution and make that suffice. Like pointing to the mug on the desk. But creationists can't just point to the obvious evidences of design in nature as sufficient to show the existence of a designer, which to my mind is more than sufficient: you don't get design without a designer. But that's not considered "scientific" although pointing to the mug or natural selection is sufficient enough for the evolutionist. I'm not saying this very well, I think I need to sleep on it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
There are no doubt some objects that are hard to identify as designed or not but they would be the extreme exceptions. Your statement does not get that problem I have identified. Yes, we can identify most designed objects we encounter, but 99.99% of the time, we do so based on familiarity with objects and the recognition of features after knowing that they are designed. But when we try to extend that beyond our experience, we can fail. When we attempt to extend this 'sense' beyond manufactured objects having features we readily associate with manufacturing to something quite different and we have no feedback system to tell us that we are right. We have absolutely no way of distinguishing between evolved and designed living things, no practical way of testing such a method, and thus simply saying that a living thing looks designed cannot be science.
I think the point Dawn is trying to make is that evolutionists don't expect to have to prove "scientifically" that evolution can design as well as a designer: all you have to do is point to microevolution and make that suffice. Observed micro eveolution is not the only evidence that life on this planet evolved. Such claims are entirely bogus. The evidence for the evolution of man is in fact indirect and includes many types of evidence and observation from which the final conclusion that even man evolved is drawn. And of course Dawn is free to conduct similar types of science himself. But he does not. His claim that he is being limited in ways that other people are not is completely wrong. So I would have to suggest that you and Dawn are not making the same or even similar points. Beyond that I would suggest that you too are not correct.
. But creationists can't just point to the obvious evidences of design in nature as sufficient to show the existence of a designer What obvious "evidences of design in nature"? Do you seriously think it is enough to point to something and say I know that is designed and therefore 'science'? Surely it is obvious why science does not accept such conclusions. I think with this sentence you do manage to agree with Bertot. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Your statement does not get that problem I have identified. Yes, we can identify most designed objects we encounter, but 99.99% of the time, we do so based on familiarity with objects and the recognition of features after knowing that they are designed. But when we try to extend that beyond our experience, we can fail. When we attempt to extend this 'sense' beyond manufactured objects having features we readily associate with manufacturing to something quite different and we have no feedback system to tell us that we are right. We have absolutely no way of distinguishing between evolved and designed living things, no practical way of testing such a method, and thus simply saying that a living thing looks designed cannot be science. Nonsense. Yes we recognize design based on familiarity with designed objects, but we can also extrapolate from the characteristics of those objects to nature. Living things have a coherence that nonliving things don't, they often have an irreducible complexity, they have features without any clear function at all, extravagances of display in birds for instance, incredible expressions of color, beauty etc. This all gets rationalized by evolution -- sexual selection being the usual theory -- but not explained, not proved by evidence to be possible by blind natural processes alone. Again they are the product of an already-existing design, even if in themselves they can be shown to be built into the DNA. It's the fact that the DNA could produce such a thing that clearly shows it's designed.
no practical way of testing such a method, and thus simply saying that a living thing looks designed cannot be science. And again, the rejoinders by the evolutionists are also not science in the sense you ask it of creationists. All they can do is point to their own theory and guess at a reason for the appearance of design, they cannot test it, they cannot prove it. Yes, saying that a living thing looks designed is sufficient and is as good science as you're going to get in the arguments against it.
Observed micro eveolution is not the only evidence that life on this planet evolved. No, but it's amazing that it is so often the evidence and the only evidence given in a particular discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
It strikes me that the creationist phrase "irreducible complexity", carries with it a huge amount of irony - in that what they are seeking to do is to reduce the enormous, amazing and wonderful complexity of the universe - a complexity which the most intelligent of our minds are only really starting to get to grips with - to stories written down in the bronze age.
Evolution is not incompatible with belief - you just have to believe that your God is so much more awesome than folks used to believe.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Nonsense. Yes we recognize design based on familiarity with designed objects, but we can also extrapolate from the characteristics of those objects to nature. I understand that is what you claim to be able to do. But can you? Show me one such extrapolation that you have actually used or could use to show that an object in nature was designed rather than having evolved.
Living things have a coherence that nonliving things don't, they often have an irreducible complexity You are describing a distinction not an extrapolation. I know that a plant differs from a rock. What I cannot tell, is whether such a difference implies design. I don't believe you can explain how or why it should. It seems that you are simply calling living things designed and then pointing out ways that those thinks differ from a rock or a glass of water. And what is an irreducible complexity? Do you know the meaning of the term you've used twice? That term is supposed to mean a feature that cannot be produced by evolutionary pathway. Which means you are simply begging the question. How do you know an irreducible complexity when you see one? And having made such an identification how can you check your result without identifying a single living thing as designed rather than evolved. And to get to the point, where is the science involved?
Yes, saying that a living thing looks designed is sufficient and is as good science as you're going to get in the arguments against it. Faith has spoken. But what you say is not how science works. And I suspect that you know that. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
No, but it's amazing that it is so often the evidence and the only evidence given in a particular discussion. Meaning what exactly? That the rest of the evidence does not exist for use in any discussion. That you are free to state that the evidence for evolution is micro evolution and nothing more when such a thing is not true? Perhaps micro evolution is sufficient for some purposes. In some cases people deny that speciation ever occurs. I've certainly seen people like Andy Schlafly attempt to discredit experiments that demonstrate evolution. But clearly your statement that it was the only evidence science uses was wrong. Which makes me wonder what your point was then, and what your point is now? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Faith writes: All 'designed' objects occurring in the world were designed by naturally occurring objects. Such as humans designing things or elephants rubbing their backs against rocks and those rocks being rubbed away to perfectly fit elephant butts later. Nonsense. Yes we recognize design based on familiarity with designed objects, but we can also extrapolate from the characteristics of those objects to nature. We still haven't found any naturally occurring 'designed' object being poofed into existence by spooks. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
You do not provide even indirect evidence Dawn. Is it possible that you do not know what evidence is?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
NN writes: Isn't the debate actually over despite the fact that he contains to say that it is not? Hasn't we already seen the concession despite the fact that Bertot continues? Yup, the debate is over. Creationism is dead. There are still a few members in the club but they no longer debate or even discuss. The only place left for them is in the Avoidance community or by simply resorting to gibberish and the usual unsupported assertions. That way they can declare they won in spite of reality.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 348 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
All of the evidence is not consistent with natural causes, I wonder if you could provide an example of something that is not designed so that we could compare the rest of the universe to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Rrhain
As Faith pointed out these are things that happen within a system. They don't address any of the real how's and why's. Evolution is not the issue. The issue is how evidence is brought to bare on an approach to a So called scientific method Dr A's avoidance and evasion aside, all seekers use indirect evidence in establishing answers to unobserved events. The question is not can I observe a tree functioning but what is the source of the tree.It is at this point the SFH retreats and insists that it doesn't matter and that we shouldn't look for any answers Denying the intricate design in biological systems like that of an eye and insisting it is not real evidence, then insisting that the conclusion of soley natural causes for the source of all things, is using the same type of indirect evidence. But we are told our indirect evidence is not actually evidence but we should accept the conclusion of Soley Natural Causes based on the same type of indirect evidence So the problem is not evolution but one of unfairness and dishonesty when handling evidence Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Yes
A pile of rocks that has fallen randomly off the side of a hill
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Dawn Bertot writes: Actually, trees starting to grow are the results of tree seeds. Interaction with the environment and all that. And lots of different trees have different seeds. Nothing magic about that. All natural. No spooks involved. The question is not can I observe a tree functioning but what is the source of the tree. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024