Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-23-2017 1:23 PM
412 online now:
caffeine, Coyote, DrJones*, edge, Faith, jar, kjsimons, RAZD, ringo, Tangle, Taq (11 members, 401 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,934 Year: 16,540/21,208 Month: 2,429/3,593 Week: 542/882 Day: 60/103 Hour: 5/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
1920
...
23Next
Author Topic:   What's the problem with teaching ID?
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 844
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 256 of 337 (664967)
06-06-2012 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Dr Adequate
06-06-2012 9:05 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
No, but they have machines that generate radio signals.

Yea but that's not jar's point. Jar is arguing that you have to have the alien machinery before validly inferring design.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-06-2012 9:05 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by jar, posted 06-06-2012 9:25 PM Genomicus has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15934
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 257 of 337 (664969)
06-06-2012 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Genomicus
06-06-2012 8:55 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
Why don't you take that up with the SETI scientists, cryptographers, and archaeologists? You're basically doing away with a whole bunch of peer-reviewed papers which rely on the fact that you don't have to know how X was designed in order to infer design. So, really, I have nothing to worry with your idea since I have many, many, many scientists to back up my methodology of inferring design.

Except that they don't actually back you up, do they? Just because you think you see some sort of resemblance between what they do and what the ID crowd are wittering on about, doesn't mean that they do.

And indeed, their methodologies explicitly contradict the dogmas of ID. For example, an archeologist will put the crudest of clay pots in the "designed" pile, and the skeleton of an antelope in the "natural" pile. If archeologists are detecting design, then their methods class organisms and their remains as being undesigned --- the exact opposite to the conclusion that IDists want to draw.

And how are archeologists carrying out their classification? Of course, because they do know how clay pots are produced and how antelope skeletons are produced, contrary to your claims. If they didn't, on what basis would they distinguish designed objects? By some abstract measure of complexity? But then they'd keep the skeleton and throw away the clay pot instead of the other way round.

So apart from you being wrong about everything, you've got a good point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 8:55 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:24 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 844
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 258 of 337 (664970)
06-06-2012 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Dr Adequate
06-06-2012 9:19 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
Except that they don't actually back you up, do they?

They back up my methodology of detecting design. Put differently, my methodology of inferring design is the same as SETI scientist et al.

And indeed, their methodologies explicitly contradict the dogmas of ID.

You've talked with me before, Dr Adequate, and I think you should know that I don't infer design simply because "it's so complex it must be designed!" Which seems to be your point with crude clay pots. Try not to confuse me with other ID proponent, mmk?

Of course, because they do know how clay pots are produced and how antelope skeletons are produced, contrary to your claims.

Yes, there are several methods to make clay pots AFAIK. According to jar's logic (remember, I'm critiquing his logic here), you'd have to know which method was employed for which pot before being able to infer design. Still, you might want to take on the SETI example: I freely confess that the archaeology example isn't as close to home with regards to my point.

So apart from you being wrong about everything, you've got a good point.

Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-06-2012 9:19 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-06-2012 10:04 PM Genomicus has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29015
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 259 of 337 (664971)
06-06-2012 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Genomicus
06-06-2012 9:05 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
Thank you. Have you read that paper? It's available here

Now how is this different from anything you have proposed?

Notice that he proposes several things, most importantly a series of tests to uses, methods and mechanics.

So far that is ONE of the things seldom found in the ID marketing field, and every one that has been put forward has been shown to be false.

The important issue is that YOU are avoiding dealing with ID.

Look at that article again.

First it deals with something humans do, build artificial orbiting bodies.

Second, it deals with how such things could be identified.

This is very comparable to what archeologists and paleontologists do when examine a site. If they find a flake of what looks like dirt, they compare it what we know we do and have done. If they find a rock with sharp edges they compare it to samples made by a knapper.

We know how such objects could be made because we make such objects.

Now let's turn to ID.

What is the method that the Designer uses to preload the genome?

What is the evidence that the genome is preloaded?

Finally, even if they orbiting body was detected as described in the paper, intelligent origin would not be inferred until all other possible sources could be eliminated.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:05 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:32 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29015
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 260 of 337 (664972)
06-06-2012 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Genomicus
06-06-2012 9:08 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
Not true.

You need to be able to duplicate the alien method.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:08 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:33 PM jar has responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 844
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 261 of 337 (664973)
06-06-2012 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by jar
06-06-2012 9:24 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
First it deals with something humans do, build artificial orbiting bodies.

Nope. Read the paper again. He only mentions humans building artificial orbiting bodies in the future at the end of the paper. The bulk of the paper concentrates on using lightcurve signatures to detect artificial objects in space, thereby allowing a new kind of SETI. So, would we need to have the aliens that designed those artificial objects in order to infer design of those objects? Not according to this paper. Humans don't build earth-sized orbiting bodies, which is about the size you'd need to send a detectable lightcurve signature to the aliens.

What is the method that the Designer uses to preload the genome?

Assume we detect an artificial object in space, using the techniques the author describes. What was the method the aliens used to design this object?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by jar, posted 06-06-2012 9:24 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by jar, posted 06-06-2012 9:36 PM Genomicus has responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 844
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 262 of 337 (664974)
06-06-2012 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by jar
06-06-2012 9:25 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
You need to be able to duplicate the alien method.

...And since we don't know what the alien method is, by your logic, we could not reliably infer design from a radio signal consisting of the first 500 prime numbers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by jar, posted 06-06-2012 9:25 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by jar, posted 06-06-2012 9:38 PM Genomicus has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29015
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 263 of 337 (664975)
06-06-2012 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Genomicus
06-06-2012 9:32 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
We build orbiting bodies even now and were doing so even before 2005.

The method they used is the methods we use.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:32 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:40 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29015
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 264 of 337 (664976)
06-06-2012 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Genomicus
06-06-2012 9:33 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
Of course we can determine methods they could use.

The issue is method or model is presented for how the designer influenced evolution or that there is any preloaded genome.

Why is it that those trying to market ID never seem to want to talk about ID, I wonder?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:33 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:45 PM jar has responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 844
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 265 of 337 (664978)
06-06-2012 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by jar
06-06-2012 9:36 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
We build orbiting bodies even now and were doing so even before 2005.

Yes, but not earth-sized objects, which, as I said would be required to make a detectable transit. That's why the author discusses an earth-sized body, not something like the ISS.

The method they used is the methods we use.

Okay. So, again, assuming for sake of argument, we detect this object: how do we know what method the aliens used? To quote your own words: I assume that you have evidence of the lab? You're going to be consistent, are you not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by jar, posted 06-06-2012 9:36 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by jar, posted 06-06-2012 9:48 PM Genomicus has responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 844
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 266 of 337 (664980)
06-06-2012 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by jar
06-06-2012 9:38 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
Of course we can determine methods they could use.

Really? How? And we'd need evidence of the lab remember, by your own words.

The issue is...

You're trying to steer the conversation away from a very crucial point, so that we can keep going 'round and 'round in circles. Let's remember why we're bringing up the example of SETI etc. It's because you implied that (a) we'd need the lab of the designer to validly infer design, (b) you said that we have to be able to duplicate the tools and everything involved in generating the signal - which of course implies that we'd need to find the tools first, because just assuming they used the same tools as we do isn't valid ya know. Etc. This is a very critical point, because I brought up the example of how humans can engineer genomes. To which you replied that we need the lab. And so on. Don't try to get out of what you said, jar.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by jar, posted 06-06-2012 9:38 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by jar, posted 06-06-2012 9:49 PM Genomicus has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29015
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 267 of 337 (664981)
06-06-2012 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Genomicus
06-06-2012 9:40 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
Sure, if we can detect the object we can determine lots about it, what it's made of, it's mass, the surface.

We can compare that to what we build, just like the paleontologist examines pottery shards and stone tools.

Why don't ID folk talk about how the designer influenced evolution, the method the designer used?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:40 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:51 PM jar has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29015
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 268 of 337 (664982)
06-06-2012 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Genomicus
06-06-2012 9:45 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
You brought up SETI.

I believe that is irrelevant and just another attractive rabbit hole so you don't have to do any work related to ID.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:45 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:51 PM jar has responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 844
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 269 of 337 (664983)
06-06-2012 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by jar
06-06-2012 9:48 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
Sure, if we can detect the object we can determine lots about it, what it's made of, it's mass, the surface.

Please address the points I make above. Are you conceding that we don't need to know the method used to construct the orbiting body (remember, assuming that the method is the same as ours isn't a conclusion that flows from any tests; further, the mass and surface isn't enough to know how it was made)?

Why don't ID folk talk about how the designer influenced evolution, the method the designer used?

I was talking about that, until you brought up all sorts of ideas like we need the lab, etc. Do we or do we not need the lab where the orbiting object was built, jar?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by jar, posted 06-06-2012 9:48 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 844
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 270 of 337 (664984)
06-06-2012 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by jar
06-06-2012 9:49 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
I believe that is irrelevant and just another attractive rabbit hole so you don't have to do any work related to ID.

I brought up SETI because I think it very neatly shows your inconsistency here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by jar, posted 06-06-2012 9:49 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by jar, posted 06-06-2012 9:53 PM Genomicus has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
1920
...
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017