The Importance of Potentially Disconfirming Evidence

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.

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.

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.

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.comhttp://www.arn.org/ http://www.arn.org/id_faq.htmthis should be good for a start

B. Mid-Eighteenth-Century Contributions1. Carolus Linneaus and Taxonomy
a. Taxonomy is the science of classifying organisms; taxonomy had been a main concern of biology.
b. Carolus Linneaus (1707-1778) was a Swedish naturalist in the field of taxonomy:
1. Linneaus developed a binomial system of nomenclature (two-part names for each species [e.g., Homo sapiens]).
2. He developed a system of classification for all known plants.
3. Like other taxonomists of his time, Linnaeus believed in the ideas of
a. special creation -- each species had an "ideal" structure and function; and
b. fixity of species -- each species had a place in the scala naturae, a sequential ladder of life.
c. Linnaeus thought that classification should describe the fixed features of species and reveal God's divine plan.
d. His ideas reflected the ideas of Plato and Aristotle: the ideal form can be deduced, and organisms
can be arranged in order of increasing complexity.
e. His later work with hybridization suggested species might change with time.the above from:
http://www.sirinet.net/~jgjohnso/apbio18.htmlI guess even this won't be enough. If I have time I will find the books that support my claim.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Paul:
What natural causes have I ignored that can bring life from non-life?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LM:
Catalytic RNA to name one.John Paul:
That is an assertion without support.LM:
Also, the scenarios for the natural construction of self-replicators breaks no known law of chemistry or physics.John Paul:
Ignorance of chemical bonds is not evidence. IOW the chemicals necessary for life would not form if left to their own devices. The bonds wouldn't be there.LM:
There is nothing magical about the chemistry that makes up life, it obeys every known thermodynamic and chemical principle known.John Paul:
More assertion and falsified.LM:
Unless you can show how life from non-life violates physical laws then you have to admit that it is possible, even if it is improbable.John Paul:
Again the chemical bonds would not form.LM:
Also, even if the first replicator was designed, this in no way elimates subsequent evolution of species via purely naturalistic mechanisms.John Paul:
True. However if life did not orginate via purely natural processes then why would anyone infer it evolved by them?LM:
However, the theory of evolution is well understood, and is capable of explaining the current diversity in species and diversity of morphology that we see today.John Paul:
Please present the paper(s) that show mutations can accumulate in such a way that we would believe the ToE is indicative of reality.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Carolus Linneaus and Taxonomy
a. Taxonomy is the science of classifying organisms; taxonomy had been a main concern of biology.
b. Carolus Linneaus (1707-1778) was a Swedish naturalist in the field of taxonomy:
1. Linneaus developed a binomial system of nomenclature (two-part names for each species [e.g., Homo sapiens]).
2. He developed a system of classification for all known plants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MaM:
And none of this relies on the supernatural in its conception or applicationJohn Paul:
Do you have a point?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Like other taxonomists of his time, Linnaeus believed in the ideas of
a. special creation -- each species had an "ideal" structure and function; and
b. fixity of species -- each species had a place in the scala naturae, a sequential ladder of life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mam:
And like other taxonomists of his time, he was wrong...still has no impact or influence on the classification system.John Paul:
How was he wrong?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Linnaeus thought that classification should describe the fixed features of species and reveal God's divine plan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mam:
He could have believed that a talking goat lived in his butt, it is irrelevant to the science of taxonomy.John Paul:
That is your assertion. However the fact remains he was out to name the created kinds.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. His ideas reflected the ideas of Plato and Aristotle: the ideal form can be deduced, and organisms
can be arranged in order of increasing complexity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mam:
Which is why modern taxonomy uses his nomenclature system and his observations of the biodiversity in nature but does not rely on mid 18th century superstition.John Paul:
What superstition?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. His later work with hybridization suggested species might change with time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mam:
Kind of screws over his belief in special creation and the fixity of species.John paul:
What an odd statement. A scientist, via his own research, falsifies his original thought and Mammuthus thinks this means something? However it does show that Charles Darwin was ignorant. Linne was before Darwin and his work was published. That is why it is funny when Darwin posed that species are not immutable.

Linne was before Darwin and his work was published. That is why it is funny when Darwin posed that species are not immutableNN:
Why is this funny?John Paul:
It is funny because Darwin was not only a plagiarist (he stole natural selection) he was also ignorant of current scientific thought.

NN:
Where did Darwin steal NS from?John Paul:
Ed Blythe wrote about NS while darwin was on his voyage. It has also been told to me that NS was written about before that.NN:
I thought it was understood that the mutability was already understood to be the mystery to be explaned.John Paul:
Linne already wrote that speciation occurred. He did not write about the mechanism.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can NOT stop an inference by what may be found out in the future. The future may also confirm ID. ID is inferred by what we know NOW. IOW ID is based on our current state of knowledge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
No, it seems to me that you are basing ID on our currrent LACK of knowledge of a naturalistic explanation for certain systems.John Paul:
That is wrong. ID is based on what we do know, not on what we don't know.schraf:
How can you tell the difference between an ID system and a natural system we will never understand because we do not have the intelligence to understand it?John Paul:
The same way archaeologists, anthropologists and other researchers tell the difference now.

NN:
And how do they do that?John Paul:
They follow a process designed to help them make that determination. The process is very similar to the design explanatory filter.NN:
And how does that apply to living things?John Paul:
Why wouldn't it? What stops the design inference at the border between living and non-living?

jar, the DEF is a flow chart. The first block asks if the event has a high probability of occuring. If it does we attribute the event to regularity/ law. The second block, if the event does not have a high prob., asks if E can occur by chance. If no then E proceeds to block 3 where two questions are asked. Does E have a small probability of occurring AND is E specified? If yes we attribute/ infer E was designed.