Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence to expect given a designer
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 269 of 373 (647125)
01-08-2012 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Chuck77
01-08-2012 6:54 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
quote:
So you want creationists to try to falsify a strawman position? By saying only one little rabbitt will falify our false theory?
You think that evolutionary theory really DOES say that we should find rabbits in the Cambrian ? If not, how can it be a strawman ?
quote:
If the TOE is untrue how can something that is already false be falsified?
You think that if something IS false, then it can't be shown to be false?
If you don't understand these points, how can you hope to discuss the issues ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 6:54 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 7:10 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 274 of 373 (647133)
01-08-2012 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Chuck77
01-08-2012 7:10 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
quote:
No, it's a strawman to say that a rabbit would falsify the theory, that is what i'm saying.
To say that the cambrian is "evolutions" little time period and then to say "find a rabbit in it" is misleading.
Then you haven't bothered to understand the point. Our understanding of evolution has no land vertebrates in the Cambrian, let alone modern mammals like rabbits. Such a find would be astounding and at the least require dramatic revisions to our understanding of evolutionary theory. It would be far better evidence against evolution than what we actually see in the Cambrian, which seems to be mainly due to the limitations of the fossil record ( e.g. very small life forms, and life without hard parts are only rarely fossilised).
And do you understand what falsification actually means now ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 7:10 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 280 of 373 (647143)
01-08-2012 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Chuck77
01-08-2012 7:40 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
quote:
Yes, a strawman is when someone misrepresents their opponents position.
And in fact the only strawman was your invention...
quote:
Maybe that was the wrong word to use. Lie would have been better. So the TOE is a lie and made up and to boot, just find a nice little rabitt where we say it can't exist and you have falisified our lie that cannot be falisified because we wont let it be falsified with all of the false information we use to craft the theory to begin with. Like the cambrian explosion for example. How neat.
I guess that is nastier and more dishonest. I don't see that as being "better".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 7:40 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 289 of 373 (647201)
01-08-2012 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Just being real
01-08-2012 6:33 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Let's have a look at this taking into account only what has actually been observed, and leaving out speculation. After all if JBR tells us that we cannot even consider that speculation MIGHT be true, so if he were relying on speculation, he would be using a double standard indeed.
I also wish to make a point about specification, If the assumption of an intelligent source is based on intent then intent must be established. Arguing for intent from an intent-free notion of specification would be necessarily make that notion of specification sufficient to argue for an intelligent source. So is the question of intent relevant or redundant ?
quote:
Scientific observation A: Something has never been observed coming from nothing. (Can be falsified by observing one case of something coming from nothing.)
I think that we can only call this an "observation" if there is a "nothing" that has been properly observed and seen to never produce anything. If "nothings" have not been observed, we cannot conclude what they might or might not be capable of (that would be speculation). So do we have such observations ? What does "nothing" mean in the context of this argument ?
quote:
Scientific observation B: the universe "began." (Can be falsified by observations which show it has always existed.)
Scientific "observation" B' we have never observed the universe failing to exist.
But apparently this is not taken as a reason to conclude that the universe has always existed. Which illustrates the problem of using a simple failure to observe something as an argument for it's impossibility.
However, we have observed that the universe is expanding for as far back as we can see. If we use well-accepted theory to run further backwards we get to a point where the universe is so small that well-accepted theory can no longer accurately describe it (this is not observation, but is it speculation or are we entitled to rely on well-established theories ?). To go beyond this point surely counts as speculation, since we do not even have well-established theory as a guide.
THere is no "Observation C"
quote:
Scientific observation D: When artifacts are studied basic facts about their origin can be conferred. Such as the observation that only things with an intended purpose, function, code, or pattern, are produced by intelligent sources. (Can be falsified by one observed case of something with this kind of specificity being formed by unguided natural processes.)
Let us note that Subbie's antenna seems to falsify that since it was not designed by an intelligent source. If however, the argument is supposed to refer to manufacture rather than design, we must note that neither the universe, nor the Earth nor living things show any evidence of intentional manufacture - which would be the usual way of identifying the presence of intent for artifacts.
quote:
Scientific observation E: The code found in the base protein pairs of the DNA of all living things is described by many micro biologists themselves as being highly specified. There are no observed cases of DNA forming by natural unguided processes, and there are no observed cases of added new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA code of a multicelled organism, which is the only thing that could even imply that it is possible to form by natural unguided processes. (Can be falsified by just one case to the contrary)
Actual observation indicates a significant degree of redundancy in the DNA code, and that large amounts of DNA appear to lack any function - and almost certainly lack any function that depends on the sequence. The idea of DNA being "highly specified" is questionable to say the least. Speculating that these parts of DNA do have sequence dependent function would be speculating against the evidence.
Moreover that objection rules out DNA being highly specified in a simple way that does not include the issue of intent. We have never observed any non-human engineering DNA with intent, nor have we observed any non-human capable of it. In short, the idea of intent with regard to DNA is based on speculation rather than observation.
On the other hand we have observed that evolution-like processes can be quite effective at producing functional designs, without having any intent at all. So if all we have is functional designs obviously we should go with the process which is observed to be operating and capable of producing functional designs rather than speculate about unobserved designers.
quote:
Scientific observation F: The 122 parameters of the Earth, such as size, position, angle, atmosphere, moon position, rotation speed, water content, and planetary orbital order, that make life possible here, are a clear display of highly specified life support systems. (Can be falsified by observing one other case of another planetary system with the existence of native life)
First it needs to be established that these parameters actually are highly specified. Without doing so this is speculation, not observation. And - in the case of the atmosphere - we must point out that the atmosphere has been radically altered by the presence of life. Which rather indicates that that is not highly specified.
Further, since our observations of other planetary systems are still very limited by the available technology, we cannot reasonably say that we have observed even a tiny fraction of those in our galaxy, let alone the many other galaxies which have been observed to exist. Any ideas about what we would find if we observed even 1% of existing planetary systems are speculative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 6:33 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 10:24 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 304 of 373 (647289)
01-09-2012 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Just being real
01-08-2012 10:24 PM


Re: Evidence for a designer
quote:
Don't twist my words. I said that things with an intended purpose, function, code, or pattern (specificity), are the product only of an intelligent source. I clearly defined how such specificity is commonly detected in science.
OK, then you've failed to establish that life, the universe or the Earth have specificity because intent has not been established. You certainly haven't shown a valid scientific method that applies.
In fact you seem to claim in Message 226 that specificity is used to identify intent, which is circular - unless the "intent" really is redundant and what you really mean is "function code or pattern".
quote:
The rest of your comments I seem to have discussed substantially in other replies.
I seem to have missed the answers. Can you start by pointing to a post that describes what you mean by "nothing" and what observations we have that entitle us to conclude that it produces nothing ? Indeed your refusal to identify how we even could make such an observation in Message 228 rather suggests that you have no observations to base your claim on whatsoever.
Edited by PaulK, : Updated with message references...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 10:24 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Just being real, posted 01-11-2012 12:40 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 317 of 373 (647826)
01-11-2012 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Just being real
01-11-2012 12:40 PM


quote:
Sigh) Look "intent" is not established it is DETECTED!!! I have however ESTABLISHED that one of the best ways to "detect" intent is to look for specificity
If you mean that intent is directly observed, then you have a problem.
I would add that you have yet to establish that your specificity really is a good method of detecting intent, the more so since intent is part of your definition (requiring that we establish intent before concluding that your specificity is present). So I suggest that you correct your definition of specificity to remove the misleading reference to intent so that we can really discuss it's merits.
quote:
Furthermore I have very well defined what I mean by specificity and given several real life scenarios in which real scientists use-- looking for specificity (rather that is the actual word they call it or not) to detect intelligence.
Obviously you haven't defined it very well since even your latest definition has an obvious problem. And no, you haven't actually shown that anybody uses your specificity at all.
quote:
I have pointed out that many working biologists describe the code in DNA as being very specified. I have also pointed out that there is no observable evidence that we can look to in biology, that explains where this code (clearly recognized) in DNA, came from.
You seem to miss the distinction between SHOWING and mere assertion. Merely claiming something does not make it true.
quote:
Therefore, devoid of any other observations, the most logical conclusion based on observation is that it came from an intelligent source.
That would be questionable even if there were no other observations. Even if you restrict the question to the first DNA there is still cause to believe that it was preceded by RNA based life. And relying on a lack of observation is -as has been shown - a very unreliable way of coming to conclusions.
quote:
The fact that we have never observed "nothing" ever. means the complimentary way of making that statement is to say, "we have only observed that something requires something else in order to be." BTW your comment about observing nothing produce nothing was quite hhhilllaaarioooouuus. I got sody pop up my nose on that one.
Okay, so your first "scientific observation" was nothing of the sort, just a lack of observation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Just being real, posted 01-11-2012 12:40 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by Just being real, posted 01-14-2012 6:45 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 335 of 373 (648323)
01-14-2012 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by Just being real
01-14-2012 6:45 AM


quote:
No my friend, I meant exactly what I said: "intent" is not established it is DETECTED!!! If I use a "detector" to detect police radar, I have not "directly observed" the radar waves, I have detected them.
But you don't have a device for "detecting design". Instead you use an argument to conclude design, which would certainly qualify as "establishing".
quote:
We use a distinguishing quality or attribute explicitly set forth; as Intended for, applying to, or acting on a particular thing: Something particularly fitted to a use or purpose (specificity)... to spot intelligence. And the key to DETECTING specificity is looking for any event or object which exhibits a pattern that matches a "foreknown" pattern that was completely "interdependent" of the first.
You just can't keep your argument straight. Firstly we are talking about establishing intent, so the "intended for..." part is redundant. And you've already denied that spotting "foreknown" patterns qualifies as detecting "specificity".
"Applying to or acting on a particular thing" is also a pretty silly way of detecting intelligence (absorption spectra would be a pretty clear example, that is not taken as an example of intelligence at work).
So that leaves you with the assertion that we should conclude that the functional systems we see in biology are the result of design. But why should we conclude that when we have an alternative explanation - evolution - better supported by the evidence?
quote:
And we do this every day. We see a bird's nest up in a tree and it instantly invokes a recognition response in us from a completely independent experience, and we know this bowl shaped clump of twigs were arranged that way for a specific purpose. To suggest that specificity is not detected this way turns us into a bunch of bumbling idiots who can't tell our asses from a hole in the ground. Perhaps you are comfortable with that description, but I am not.
And yet most of us do not conclude that there is intelligence at work in assembling the nest. Which may be underestimating the bird, but I think we can say that any claim that the nest is primarily the result of intelligent thought rather than instinct is one very much in need of support.
quote:
Wow... for real? Well since it seems to be far too difficult for you to go and back read before making accusations, I will help you out sir. In message 113 I actually "SHOWED" how several biologists refer to the code in DNA as being specified. In message 271 I actually "SHOWED" a list of several biologists who directly attribute this to an intelligent source. Thus contrary to your accusation that I am merely claiming and not "SHOWING"... you are wrong --again.
Message 113 does not support your claim that DNA is highly specified at all (do not forget that genes represent only a small proportion of DNA) - and nor do either of the links. Message 271 is a list of ID supporters (who clearly do not represent the scientific consensus) - but with no indication that even they agree with your claim. So no, you have not shown that scientists or biologists in general describe DNA as highly specified.
You really ought to learn not to try these silly bluffing tactics on me, because I WILL check your claims, and I WILL point out that they are clearly untrue.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Just being real, posted 01-14-2012 6:45 AM Just being real has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 370 of 373 (650226)
01-29-2012 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 369 by Percy
01-29-2012 7:22 AM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but I should point out that that is Special Relativity, which only deals with inertial frames of reference (i.e. the frames of reference do not accelerate and therefore their relative velocities are constant).
Acceleration complicates matters considerably and is dealt with in General Relativity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Percy, posted 01-29-2012 7:22 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by Percy, posted 01-29-2012 7:55 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 372 of 373 (650230)
01-29-2012 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 371 by Percy
01-29-2012 7:55 AM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
I think that it is important to know that General Relativity exists and that acceleration does make a difference. Explaining General Relativity, even in outline, is probably going too far - but without that information you do risk introducing more confusion.
(The Twin Paradox, for instance can only be solved by recognising that acceleration is involved and a naive application of Special Relativity doesn't work).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Percy, posted 01-29-2012 7:55 AM Percy has seen this message but 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