Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is needed for creationists to connect evidence to valid conclusions
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 136 of 147 (447114)
01-08-2008 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by molbiogirl
01-08-2008 2:24 AM


Re: The Paper
molbiogirl
I think he has it scheduled somewhere around the time of the second coming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by molbiogirl, posted 01-08-2008 2:24 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 137 of 147 (447132)
01-08-2008 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by arachnophilia
01-07-2008 8:47 PM


Re: The Belief Stops Here
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.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by arachnophilia, posted 01-07-2008 8:47 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by arachnophilia, posted 01-12-2008 11:11 PM RAZD has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 138 of 147 (447136)
01-08-2008 8:40 AM


About the topic...
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: 05-01-2005


Message 139 of 147 (447137)
01-08-2008 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by molbiogirl
01-08-2008 2:24 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by molbiogirl, posted 01-08-2008 2:24 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 140 of 147 (447143)
01-08-2008 9:28 AM


Request for Explanations Connecting Evidence to Conclusions
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by nwr, posted 01-08-2008 10:01 AM Percy has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 141 of 147 (447155)
01-08-2008 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Percy
01-08-2008 9:28 AM


Re: Request for Explanations Connecting Evidence to Conclusions
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Percy, posted 01-08-2008 9:28 AM Percy has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 142 of 147 (448317)
01-12-2008 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by RAZD
01-08-2008 8:15 AM


Re: The Belief Stops Here
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by RAZD, posted 01-08-2008 8:15 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2008 7:43 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 143 of 147 (448491)
01-13-2008 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by arachnophilia
01-12-2008 11:11 PM


Re: The Belief Stops Here
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, : .

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by arachnophilia, posted 01-12-2008 11:11 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
ThreeDogs
Member (Idle past 5850 days)
Posts: 77
From: noli me calcare
Joined: 01-08-2008


Message 144 of 147 (448806)
01-15-2008 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by NosyNed
01-02-2008 5:05 PM


Re: Amount of Evidence
quote:
For you to connect evidence to valid conclusions you first have to get a little, teensy tiny grasp on what evidence there is out there. Then you have to get a wee, tiny understanding of our reasoning works.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 01-02-2008 5:05 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Quetzal, posted 01-15-2008 10:29 AM ThreeDogs has not replied
 Message 147 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2008 9:06 PM ThreeDogs has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 145 of 147 (448811)
01-15-2008 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by ThreeDogs
01-15-2008 10:19 AM


Re: Amount of Evidence
...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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by ThreeDogs, posted 01-15-2008 10:19 AM ThreeDogs has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2008 8:17 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 146 of 147 (448978)
01-15-2008 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Quetzal
01-15-2008 10:29 AM


Re: Amount of Evidence
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.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Quetzal, posted 01-15-2008 10:29 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 147 of 147 (448991)
01-15-2008 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by ThreeDogs
01-15-2008 10:19 AM


Re: Amount of Evidence
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.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by ThreeDogs, posted 01-15-2008 10:19 AM ThreeDogs has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024