Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 136 of 182 (115731)
06-16-2004 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Mammuthus
06-16-2004 11:20 AM


Re: I see JM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speciation? Creationists have known and understood speciation occurs for over 200 years- dating back to the Creationist Karl von Linne.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MaM:
Creationists have been researching how genetic imprinting can cause mating incompatibility? They sure keep their "understanding" well guarded from the rest of the world then.
John Paul:
Mendel was a Creationist and is the father of genetics. Speciation is ambiguous at best. Wolves and dogs can interbreed yet they are seperate species.
The Linnean classification system was borne out of the search for the Created Kinds.
Newton understood this world and the universe to be the product of the Creator. He conducted his science under that framework.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Mammuthus, posted 06-16-2004 11:20 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Dr Jack, posted 06-16-2004 11:43 AM John Paul has replied
 Message 138 by Mammuthus, posted 06-16-2004 11:46 AM John Paul has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 137 of 182 (115734)
06-16-2004 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by John Paul
06-16-2004 11:34 AM


Re: I see JM
Mendel was a Creationist and is the father of genetics.
Mendel was not a creationist in the modern sense.
The Linnean classification system was borne out of the search for the Created Kinds.
This is simply false.
Newton understood this world and the universe to be the product of the Creator. He conducted his science under that framework.
Yes, he did. However none of his useful work referenced or required that framework. No-one is saying you can't be a theist and do good science, it's when you bring supernaturalism into your work that you hit problems. (Notice the lack of remembered works on alchemy and astrology by Newton?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 11:34 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 11:57 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 138 of 182 (115735)
06-16-2004 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by John Paul
06-16-2004 11:34 AM


Re: I see JM
quote:
Mendel was a Creationist and is the father of genetics. Speciation is ambiguous at best. Wolves and dogs can interbreed yet they are seperate species.
Show how anything about Mendelian genetics relies on creationionism or any other supernatural explanation....it is pure methodological naturalism regardless of Mendels religious beliefs. Hindu's, atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, Wiccans, you name it have made novel discoveries in genetics, developmental biology, etc. all conected together by methodological naturalism.
quote:
The Linnean classification system was borne out of the search for the Created Kinds.
You are confusing motivation with actual practice. Again show how classification, taxonomy, cladistics or phylogenetics rely on anything but natural observation or explanation.
quote:
Newton understood this world and the universe to be the product of the Creator. He conducted his science under that framework.
Again, you confuse motivation with practice. There is nothing supernatural about Newtons theories. His science was plain old methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism can be practiced by the religious or the non-religious to advance scientific knowledge. Proposing supernatural causes for natural events has never lead to a single scientific discovery or advancement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 11:34 AM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 182 (115736)
06-16-2004 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Dr Jack
06-16-2004 11:43 AM


Re: I see JM
Mendel was a Creationist and is the father of genetics.
MrJ:
Mendel was not a creationist in the modern sense.
John Paul:
Sure he was. As was Pasteur, Newton, Kepler, Copernicus et al.
The Linnean classification system was borne out of the search for the Created Kinds.
MrJ:
This is simply false.
John Paul:
No, Linne was searching for the Created Kinds. That is a fact. He came up with binimial nomenclature to name these kinds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Dr Jack, posted 06-16-2004 11:43 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Dr Jack, posted 06-16-2004 12:26 PM John Paul has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 140 of 182 (115737)
06-16-2004 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by nator
06-16-2004 11:05 AM


Point of Information
Schrafinator states:
quote:
[IDC] closes off curiosity and stops research cold, because you have already decided that a given IC system could not possibly have had a naturalistic explanation, without any doubt, no need to look any further.
Despite John Paul's claim that you're misrepresenting his pet theory, you're absolutely right. Dembski's explanatory filter (as outlined in The Design Inference and elsewhere) is the procedure through which we're supposed to be able to determine whether an 'artifact' is the product of intelliegnt design.
First, according to Dembski, we're supposed to gauge the probability that this phenomenon was the product of chance alone. Then we assess the probability that the phenomenon is the result of physical laws or natural mechanisms. If it cannot be determined to be the result of 'chance' or 'necessity,' we are led to the conclusion of design, meaning intelligent agency.
However, why is design the default? Shouldn't the probability that the phenomenon is the direct product of intelligent agency be assessed independently, just like chance and necessity? It only looks like Dembski is trying to make it harder to conclude design by assessing the other possibilities first; in fact he's ensuring that by the time we make it to step three, no probability for design need be assigned.
In addition, the second step of the explanatory filter assumes that we know all the natural forces or mechanisms that could conceivably exist. Historically, it's plain to see that with scientific progress comes a better understanding of the power of natural mechanisms. It certainly does depend on our ignorance of possible natural mechanisms to assume that no such mechanisms exist or will ever be discovered and understood.
Lastly, there is no reason to exclude the possibility that a combination of chance and natural mechanisms could give rise to a certain phenomenon. This is exactly what Darwinism claims is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth: time, chance mutation, and the deterministic process of cumulative natural selection. It seems Dembski wants people to think that no such combination of forces exists, and it may be in his best interests if they believe him.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by nator, posted 06-16-2004 11:05 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 12:28 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 141 of 182 (115740)
06-16-2004 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by John Paul
06-16-2004 11:57 AM


Re: I see JM
Sure he was. As was Pasteur, Newton, Kepler, Copernicus et al.
No, they weren't - modern creationism is about finding pseudo-scientific lies to support discredited ideas. Pasteur, Neton, Kepler and Copernicus may well have belived in a created world but they weren't going around lying to defend it.
No, Linne was searching for the Created Kinds. That is a fact. He came up with binimial nomenclature to name these kinds.
It's a lie. He was attempting to classify the diversity of life; created kinds didn't come into it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 11:57 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 12:34 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 182 (115741)
06-16-2004 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by John Paul
06-16-2004 9:54 AM


Re: I see JM
quote:
LM:
We can't give a blow by blow account. That is why ID is an argument from ignorance. They claim that since we can't give a blow by blow, then ID has to be correct.
John Paul:
Another misrepresentation. ID is not an argument from ignorance. It is an argument from our current state of knowledge. That current state of knowledge shows that every time we see specified complexity and/ or information-rich systems they are ALWAYS the result of an intelligent agency. IOW there is not one case of specified complexity or information-rich systems arising without the aid of intelliegence.
Actually, it is you that is misrepresenting the ID inference. Both the explanatory filter and the ID inference are only applied ONCE ALL NATURAL CAUSES HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED AS A POSSIBLE CAUSE. You have not eliminated those natural causes, but simply ignored them. If natural mechanisms are ignored, then design by ID will be wrongly detected in designs that are obviously naturally caused or caused by a selective filter. Take the Face on Mars. In the right light it is as complex as some statues made by men. Do we chalk this up to intelligent design, or do we attribute it to the angle of the light being cast on a naturally occuring geology? If natural causes are eliminated a priori then you would have to conclude that the Face on Mars is designed by intelligence. This is exactly what you are doing, handwaving away natural mechanisms before hand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 9:54 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 12:42 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 182 (115742)
06-16-2004 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by MrHambre
06-16-2004 12:04 PM


Re: Point of Information
Schrafinator states:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[IDC] closes off curiosity and stops research cold, because you have already decided that a given IC system could not possibly have had a naturalistic explanation, without any doubt, no need to look any further.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MrH:
Despite John Paul's claim that you're misrepresenting his pet theory, you're absolutely right.
John Paul:
And the stupidity and misrepresentations continue. 1) ID is NOT my pet theory. 2) ID does NOT close off curiosity any more than archaelogists', anthropologists', SETI researchers', forensic scientists' et al. curiousity is closed off. As I have stated several times there is still much work to do. Was our curiousity of Stonehenge gone when we discovered it or determined it was the product of intelligent design? No. The notion that our curiousity is closed off by ID is dumber than dumb.
MrH:
Dembski's explanatory filter (as outlined in The Design Inference and elsewhere) is the procedure through which we're supposed to be able to determine whether an 'artifact' is the product of intelliegnt design.
John Paul:
And it works rather well.
MrH:
First, according to Dembski, we're supposed to gauge the probability that this phenomenon was the product of chance alone. Then we assess the probability that the phenomenon is the result of physical laws or natural mechanisms. If it cannot be determined to be the result of 'chance' or 'necessity,' we are led to the conclusion of design, meaning intelligent agency.
John Paul:
Not quite. The object has to exhibit specified complexity AND have a small probability, before ID is inferred.
Dembski's design explanatory filter can be falsified. Just show one instance where specified complexity arose via purely natural processes. Instead of whining this is where you should focus your efforts.
BTW, Darwinism has nothing to say about the origins of life. The mechanisms of Darwinism do not apply to the origins of life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by MrHambre, posted 06-16-2004 12:04 PM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by NosyNed, posted 06-16-2004 12:39 PM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 182 (115743)
06-16-2004 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Dr Jack
06-16-2004 12:26 PM


Re: I see JM
Sure he was. As was Pasteur, Newton, Kepler, Copernicus et al.
MrJ:
No, they weren't - modern creationism is about finding pseudo-scientific lies to support discredited ideas. Pasteur, Neton, Kepler and Copernicus may well have belived in a created world but they weren't going around lying to defend it.
John Paul:
Yes they were. Creationists are those who are convinced by the evidence that God Created the universe and life. No lies needed to defend that position. Perhaps your misrepresentation of what a Creationist is needs to be fixed.
No, Linne was searching for the Created Kinds. That is a fact. He came up with binimial nomenclature to name these kinds.
MrJ:
It's a lie. He was attempting to classify the diversity of life; created kinds didn't come into it.
John Paul:
No, it is a FACT.
From Carl Linnaeus :
Was Linnaeus an evolutionist? It is true that he abandoned his earlier belief in the fixity of species, and it is true that hybridization has produced new species of plants, and in some cases of animals. Yet to Linnaeus, the process of generating new species was not open-ended and unlimited. Whatever new species might have arisen from the primae speciei, the original species in the Garden of Eden, were still part of God's plan for creation, for they had always potentially been present.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Dr Jack, posted 06-16-2004 12:26 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Dr Jack, posted 06-16-2004 12:40 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 149 by Mammuthus, posted 06-16-2004 12:48 PM John Paul has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 145 of 182 (115745)
06-16-2004 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by John Paul
06-16-2004 12:28 PM


Finally -- A Definition!
The object has to exhibit specified complexity AND have a small probability, before ID is inferred.
Oh, finally, someone who knows the subject so well is going to tell us what CSI is!
This is the thread to do that in:
CSI and Design
Thanks for this. I, for one, have been wondering what it is for months.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 12:28 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 12:49 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 146 of 182 (115746)
06-16-2004 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by John Paul
06-16-2004 12:34 PM


Re: I see JM
Yes they were. Creationists are those who are convinced by the evidence that God Created the universe and life.
Where is your evidence that they were ever convinced by any evidence? Since no alternative explanation existed at the time do you not think that a more likely explanation is that they never questioned it.
No lies needed to defend that position. Perhaps your misrepresentation of what a Creationist is needs to be fixed.
Funny that creationists lie all the time then.
I love the way you post a link that supports my view. He was looking to classify nature, not find 'created kinds'. Whether he believed in such kinds or not is not the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 12:34 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 12:46 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 182 (115747)
06-16-2004 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Loudmouth
06-16-2004 12:28 PM


Re: I see JM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LM:
We can't give a blow by blow account. That is why ID is an argument from ignorance. They claim that since we can't give a blow by blow, then ID has to be correct.
John Paul:
Another misrepresentation. ID is not an argument from ignorance. It is an argument from our current state of knowledge. That current state of knowledge shows that every time we see specified complexity and/ or information-rich systems they are ALWAYS the result of an intelligent agency. IOW there is not one case of specified complexity or information-rich systems arising without the aid of intelliegence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LM:
Actually, it is you that is misrepresenting the ID inference.
John Paul:
I doubt that and I doubt you would know if I was.
LM:
Both the explanatory filter and the ID inference are only applied ONCE ALL NATURAL CAUSES HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED AS A POSSIBLE CAUSE.
John Paul:
Wrong. The EF is applied to eliminate natural causes. The ID inference is then a deduction based on the EF.
LM:
You have not eliminated those natural causes, but simply ignored them.
John Paul:
What natural causes have I ignored that can bring life from non-life?
LM:
If natural mechanisms are ignored, then design by ID will be wrongly detected in designs that are obviously naturally caused or caused by a selective filter.
John Paul:
But natural processes aren't ignored they are eliminated.
LM:
Take the Face on Mars. In the right light it is as complex as some statues made by men.
John Paul:
But statues aren't very complex and we haven't studied the allege face up close.
LM:
Do we chalk this up to intelligent design, or do we attribute it to the angle of the light being cast on a naturally occuring geology?
John Paul:
It doesn't fit the criteria of the EF as being designed.
LM:
If natural causes are eliminated a priori then you would have to conclude that the Face on Mars is designed by intelligence.
John Paul:
ID does NOT eliminate anything a priori. It eliminates via research and knowledge.
LM:
This is exactly what you are doing, handwaving away natural mechanisms before hand.
John Paul:
That is a lie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Loudmouth, posted 06-16-2004 12:28 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Loudmouth, posted 06-16-2004 12:58 PM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 182 (115748)
06-16-2004 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Dr Jack
06-16-2004 12:40 PM


Re: I see JM
MrJ:
Where is your evidence that they were ever convinced by any evidence?
John Paul:
I's called books. try reading some.
MrJ:
Since no alternative explanation existed at the time do you not think that a more likely explanation is that they never questioned it.
John Paul:
Now that is a lie. Theories of evolution have been around for millenia. So of course they had an alternative.
MrJ:
Funny that creationists lie all the time then.
John Paul:
Funny that evolutionists do too.
MrJ:
I love the way you post a link that supports my view.
John Paul:
Too bad it didn't.
MrJ:
He was looking to classify nature, not find 'created kinds'.
John Paul:
Wrong. Nature doesn't require classification, organisms do. And he was looking for the Created Kind, that is the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Dr Jack, posted 06-16-2004 12:40 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Dr Jack, posted 06-17-2004 5:36 AM John Paul has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 149 of 182 (115750)
06-16-2004 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by John Paul
06-16-2004 12:34 PM


Re: I see JM
quote:
Was Linnaeus an evolutionist? It is true that he abandoned his earlier belief in the fixity of species, and it is true that hybridization has produced new species of plants, and in some cases of animals. Yet to Linnaeus, the process of generating new species was not open-ended and unlimited. Whatever new species might have arisen from the primae speciei, the original species in the Garden of Eden, were still part of God's plan for creation, for they had always potentially been present.
And what does this have to do with the classification system? Kerry Mullis claims to have thought up PCR while completely stoned and driving along the freeway. Yet, PCR was realized by application of methodological naturalism...not by consumption of drugs. Lots of people go into medical research because a loved one had a disease. Are all medical discoveries caused by disease? By your logic yes.
You need to learn to separate motivation from practice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 12:34 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 182 (115751)
06-16-2004 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by NosyNed
06-16-2004 12:39 PM


Re: Finally -- A Definition!
Can't do it NN. I have been banned for the ID forum. However that should not stop you from doing the research. There are plenty of ID sites to visit:
http://www.designinference.com/
Welcome idthink.net - BlueHost.com
http://www.arn.org/ http://www.arn.org/id_faq.htm
this should be good for a start

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by NosyNed, posted 06-16-2004 12:39 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 12:56 PM John Paul 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