Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Importance of Potentially Disconfirming Evidence
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 182 (115386)
06-15-2004 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by nator
06-15-2004 2:11 PM


Re: Ignoring the Evidence
schraf:
How do we tell the difference between an Intelligently Deigned system and a natural one which we
1) don't currently understand but will in the future, or
2) don't have the intelligence to ever understand?
John Paul:
Saying we will understand something in the future means nothing. It is what we understand now that drives our inferences now. And if we never understand something does that put it outside of science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by nator, posted 06-15-2004 2:11 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by nator, posted 06-15-2004 2:49 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 182 (115387)
06-15-2004 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Loudmouth
06-15-2004 1:53 PM


Re: mrh's stupid challenge
This is the problem. I define natural as anything that nature can do. For example my car is NOT natural.
DNA replication- I already posted this for MrH, which was a waste because he can't understand anything on this level:
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od201/peeringdbb201.htm
Actually it is our ignorance that determined the mutations are random. Someone not versed in computer code would think it jumps around randomly but when an educated person looks he sees that it is the loops, go to instructions and other pieces of code that are actually making those jumps.
Proteins come from DNA. Life requires proteins. Which came first the protein or the DNA?
No one can predict what is selected for at any point in time- Dan Dennett.
Proteins change shape and they no longer function in the system, the system fails and the organism dies. Proteins rely on a "hand/ glove" fit. You can't change a protein without affecting something- in a negative way.
LM:
All evolutionists have to do to evidence IC as a result of evolution is to show random, non-teleological, mutations. This has been done.
John Paul:
When and where? Not in biology that's for sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Loudmouth, posted 06-15-2004 1:53 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Loudmouth, posted 06-15-2004 4:07 PM John Paul has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 93 of 182 (115389)
06-15-2004 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by John Paul
06-14-2004 1:32 PM


Re: I see JM
quote:
Secondly ID is scientific and its processes are already being used in scientific and other investigative venues.
Really?
Can you cite some papers from a professional Biology or Genetics journal in which Intelligent Design is used?
I'd be very interested to read them.
quote:
ID predicts we will see information rich systems and specified complexity along with IC.
But how do we tell the difference between an Intelligently designed system and a natural one that we
1) don't currently understand but will in the furure after investigating it more, sometimes for decades, and
2) don't have the intelligence to ever understand?
How does the IDists claim of IC ever know for sure that they just haven't thought of a naturalistic explanation for a given IC/ID system yet?
Doesn't claiming ID through IC constitute giving up trying to figure stuff out and saying "the IDer didit?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by John Paul, posted 06-14-2004 1:32 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by AdminNosy, posted 06-15-2004 2:38 PM nator has not replied
 Message 96 by John Paul, posted 06-15-2004 2:39 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 94 of 182 (115390)
06-15-2004 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by John Paul
06-14-2004 4:04 PM


Re: JM spews raw nonsense
quote:
And materialism just looks for material/ natural causes and ignores everything else.
No kidding.
Can you please explain how scientific investigation will benefit from including the supernatural?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by John Paul, posted 06-14-2004 4:04 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by John Paul, posted 06-15-2004 2:41 PM nator has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 95 of 182 (115391)
06-15-2004 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by nator
06-15-2004 2:28 PM


Time to regroup
This discussion seems to be getting a little bit of "did to", "did NOT". I'd like to remind everyone that it is necessary to support your claims.
However, I haven't been following closely enough to tell you hasn't been.
Could I ask both sides to summarize where they feel the discussion is? Then point out the particular evidence and logic for their side. It is time to focus this. I must apologize for not being able to go over the thread in fine detail. The big move is in progress. But when I get the time I will and will be cranky if i have too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by nator, posted 06-15-2004 2:28 PM nator has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 182 (115392)
06-15-2004 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by nator
06-15-2004 2:28 PM


Re: I see JM
scraf:
Doesn't claiming ID through IC constitute giving up trying to figure stuff out and saying "the IDer didit?"
John Paul:
That is an ID detractors' misconception. Even if something is designed does not mean that is all there is to do. I know my car is designed but that doesn't help me understand how it functions.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondly ID is scientific and its processes are already being used in scientific and other investigative venues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Really?
John Paul:
Really.
schraf:
Can you cite some papers from a professional Biology or Genetics journal in which Intelligent Design is used?
John Paul:
What does that have to do with ID being scientific? Oh that's right it has nothing to do with it at all. However "The Design Inference" is peer-reviewed. Also the Discovery Institute and other ID sites have the articles you seek.
schraf:
How does the IDists claim of IC ever know for sure that they just haven't thought of a naturalistic explanation for a given IC/ID system yet?
John Paul:
That is why it is called an inference. Why would anyone infer life arose from non-life via purely natural processes when there isn't a shred of evidence to support that view?
I'd be very interested to read them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by nator, posted 06-15-2004 2:28 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by nator, posted 06-15-2004 3:09 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 102 by Admin, posted 06-15-2004 3:26 PM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 182 (115393)
06-15-2004 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by nator
06-15-2004 2:35 PM


Re: JM spews raw nonsense
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And materialism just looks for material/ natural causes and ignores everything else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
scraf:
No kidding.
Can you please explain how scientific investigation will benefit from including the supernatural?
John Paul:
You let the evidence lead you to where it will. That is how it will help us, by not limiting our search to something that didn't happen- ie a natural start to life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by nator, posted 06-15-2004 2:35 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by nator, posted 06-15-2004 2:56 PM John Paul has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 98 of 182 (115399)
06-15-2004 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by John Paul
06-15-2004 2:16 PM


Re: Ignoring the Evidence
quote:
Saying we will understand something in the future means nothing. It is what we understand now that drives our inferences now.
But it means everything to your claim of IC structures being the product of ID.
Your claim seems to be that natural mechanisms could not possibly, without any doubt whatsoever produce certain IC systems, and because we do not currently know how they could have come about naturally, it is not possible that we will ever know, so we should just give up investigating possible natural mechanisms and conclude ID.
quote:
And if we never understand something does that put it outside of science?
No, of course not.
My point is, just because we do not have the intelligence to understand something we observe in nature doesn't mean that it didn't come about by completely natural means.
Ignorance of the origin of some natural system does not equal "IDer Didit".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by John Paul, posted 06-15-2004 2:16 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by nator, posted 06-16-2004 11:12 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 99 of 182 (115403)
06-15-2004 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by John Paul
06-15-2004 2:41 PM


Re: JM spews raw nonsense
quote:
You let the evidence lead you to where it will. That is how it will help us, by not limiting our search to something that didn't happen- ie a natural start to life.
But ID doesn't deal in evidence, as far as I can tell. It deals in a lack of knowledge (we can't think of how this system could have come about naturally) and then inserting an IDer into the gap of our knowledge.
Tell me, does ID predict how many IC systems should be found in nature, and by what meachanism they are produced? For instance, can they take a pure strain of bacteria and predict how many, what kind, and how many generations it will take for IC mechanisms will be produced?
Also, how do they know it is IC and not a natural occurence they don't understand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by John Paul, posted 06-15-2004 2:41 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by John Paul, posted 06-15-2004 3:22 PM nator has replied
 Message 117 by nator, posted 06-16-2004 9:54 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 100 of 182 (115411)
06-15-2004 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by John Paul
06-15-2004 2:39 PM


Re: I see JM
quote:
That is an ID detractors' misconception. Even if something is designed does not mean that is all there is to do. I know my car is designed but that doesn't help me understand how it functions.
But if you conclude "We don't see any naturalistic way that this system could have happened, end of story", isn't that basically saying that you are finished investigating? It doesn't seem to make much sense for an IDist to keep on investigating the natural properties of a ID system if they have already decided that a natural mechanism isn't possible.
Can you cite some papers from a professional Biology or Genetics journal in which Intelligent Design is used?
quote:
John Paul:
What does that have to do with ID being scientific? Oh that's right it has nothing to do with it at all. However "The Design Inference" is peer-reviewed. Also the Discovery Institute and other ID sites have the articles you seek.
If ID is scientific and useful as an explanitory framework, then papers using it should have no problem being published in a professional science journal. Why aren't they?
OK, if you can't cite professional scientific jounal articles that use ID, perhaps you can list off a few general scientific advancements that ID has contributed to our understanding of nature. Technological advancements, or just fulfilled specific predictions or retrodictions would be fine, too.
Also, what are the potential falsifications, if found in nature, that would falsify ID?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-15-2004 02:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by John Paul, posted 06-15-2004 2:39 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by John Paul, posted 06-15-2004 3:29 PM nator has not replied
 Message 104 by John Paul, posted 06-15-2004 3:29 PM nator has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 182 (115418)
06-15-2004 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by nator
06-15-2004 2:56 PM


Re: JM spews raw nonsense
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You let the evidence lead you to where it will. That is how it will help us, by not limiting our search to something that didn't happen- ie a natural start to life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
But ID doesn't deal in evidence, as far as I can tell.
John Paul:
And that response tells me you know little if anything about ID.
schraf:
It deals in a lack of knowledge (we can't think of how this system could have come about naturally) and then inserting an IDer into the gap of our knowledge.
John Paul:
In reality it deal with what we do know. IOW in every instance that we observe information-rich systems and/ or specified complexity an intelligent agent is always the cause.
schraf:
Also, how do they know it is IC and not a natural occurence they don't understand?
John paul:
How many times do I have to answer that? ID is an inference. It could be a starting inference. It is also an inference that can be falsified. How many scientific theories have been changed because our knowledge changed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by nator, posted 06-15-2004 2:56 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by nator, posted 06-16-2004 9:42 AM John Paul has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 102 of 182 (115420)
06-15-2004 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by John Paul
06-15-2004 2:39 PM


Re: I see JM
John Paul writes:
That is why it is called an inference. Why would anyone infer life arose from non-life via purely natural processes when there isn't a shred of evidence to support that view?
You have repeated this many, many times. I see no evidence that my concerns about moving the debate forward are being given any heed. Your posting privileges in the [forum=-10] forum are now suspended.
I would like you to resolve the issues regarding the requirements that must be satisfied for a position to be considered scientific, either in this thread, or in the What is science? thread.
As always, I am available to discuss this, either in the [forum=-19] forum, or by email to Admin.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by John Paul, posted 06-15-2004 2:39 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by John Paul, posted 06-15-2004 3:34 PM Admin has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 182 (115422)
06-15-2004 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by nator
06-15-2004 3:09 PM


Re: I see JM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is an ID detractors' misconception. Even if something is designed does not mean that is all there is to do. I know my car is designed but that doesn't help me understand how it functions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
But if you conclude "We don't see any naturalistic way that this system could have happened, end of story", isn't that basically saying that you are finished investigating?
John Paul:
No, not at all. I am very surprised that anyone would think that way. Do archaeologists stop investigating their finds? No!. As I have stated several times there is more to do then to just determine something is designed.
schraf:
It doesn't seem to make much sense for an IDist to keep on investigating the natural properties of a ID system if they have already decided that a natural mechanism isn't possible.
John Paul:
99% of what ID detractors post or say don't make any sense but they keep posting and saying it. As I stated just knowing or determining that something is designed does NOT give you any info as to what it does or how it does it.
schraf:
Also, what are the potential falsifications, if found in nature, that would falsify ID?
John Paul:
How many times do I have to post this? To falsify ID just show that information-rich systems or specified complexity can arise via purely natural processes. IOW show us life can arise from non-life via purely natural processes and there is no need to infer a designer was necessary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by nator, posted 06-15-2004 3:09 PM nator has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 182 (115423)
06-15-2004 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by nator
06-15-2004 3:09 PM


Re: I see JM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is an ID detractors' misconception. Even if something is designed does not mean that is all there is to do. I know my car is designed but that doesn't help me understand how it functions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
But if you conclude "We don't see any naturalistic way that this system could have happened, end of story", isn't that basically saying that you are finished investigating?
John Paul:
No, not at all. I am very surprised that anyone would think that way. Do archaeologists stop investigating their finds? No!. As I have stated several times there is more to do then to just determine something is designed.
schraf:
It doesn't seem to make much sense for an IDist to keep on investigating the natural properties of a ID system if they have already decided that a natural mechanism isn't possible.
John Paul:
99% of what ID detractors post or say don't make any sense but they keep posting and saying it. As I stated just knowing or determining that something is designed does NOT give you any info as to what it does or how it does it.
schraf:
Also, what are the potential falsifications, if found in nature, that would falsify ID?
John Paul:
How many times do I have to post this? To falsify ID just show that information-rich systems or specified complexity can arise via purely natural processes. IOW show us life can arise from non-life via purely natural processes and there is no need to infer a designer was necessary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by nator, posted 06-15-2004 3:09 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by edge, posted 06-15-2004 4:03 PM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 182 (115426)
06-15-2004 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Admin
06-15-2004 3:26 PM


Re: I see JM
John Paul writes:
That is why it is called an inference. Why would anyone infer life arose from non-life via purely natural processes when there isn't a shred of evidence to support that view?
Percy:
You have repeated this many, many times.
John Paul:
Gee, educated people would have caught on by now. Is it my fault I have to repeat myself?
Percy:
I see no evidence that my concerns about moving the debate forward are being given any heed.
John Paul:
Don't blame me for that.
Percy:
Your posting privileges in the Intelligent Design forum are now suspended.
John Paul:
Yup, if you can't beat 'em, ban 'em. That is the evolutionary way.
I would love for any evolutionist to present any objective evidence to support their faith in evoltionism. So far it hasn't happened yet their posting privileges remain intact. Go figure...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Admin, posted 06-15-2004 3:26 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Admin, posted 06-15-2004 3:51 PM John Paul has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024