|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is science? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
It is your job to provide the explanation and evidence. Otherwise you would be in violation of forum guidelines. You've had a lot of time now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
Mark:
No, it's your job to provide evidence it's your argument. John Paul:Been there, done that. Mark:In assuming SC is always the result of design without actually knowing it commits the logical fallacies John Paul:The reality is that EVERY time we see specified complexity it is ALWAYS the result of an intelliegent agency. No assumptions necessary. If we had one case where specified complexity arose via purely natural processes that statement would be falsified. However we have NEVER observed specified complexity arise via purely natural processes. The deduction is when we see SC we can safely infer ID. The bottom line is ID is testable and it is falsifiable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
John Paul:
LoL! Just because something is full of objects does not make it objective. Stratigraphy is subjective because we don't know how those layers were laid down. Do you understand what is meant by "objective" as it relates to subjective? The fossil record consists of objects known as fossils, not my subjective opinion, it is an objective fact. Good grief. Stratigraphy is not subjective opinion, either. Layers can and are cross correlated over large areas. This is based upon the observation, not subjective opinion, that sediments are deposited sequentially on top of each other rather than the other way around. Therefore, finding different flora & fauna in different layers represents objective data.
Mark: 2/ It doesn't have to say anything about the mechanism, it has to support the ToE's predictions. If you take what brought this on in context (an objective test for the ToE) it has to say something about the mechanism. also the only thing the ToE can predict is change. It says of the mechanism that the underlying principles assumed by cladistics are borne out.
Mark: 3/ Let's not descend into hypocrisy. If you don't have to produce a mechanism for ID, then neither does anyone for the ToE. You can't have it both ways. John Paul:Design is the mechanism. Your argument is of the form, there is design so there must have been a mechanism, if there was a mechanism it was design. This logically fallacious; affirming the consequent: any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A. In other words, design cannot be the mechanism of design. It should be patently obvious, but there you go. It's like saying the way a Spitfire MkII was designed was by design. It says nothing, which is why its a fallacy. Moreover, it says nothing of the mechanism of construction, which is implicit to ID, & is what I & Loudmouth are really asking for when we ask for a mechanism.
The DEF doesn't need to be in the link. I never said the DEF was evidence. I said it was a way to test for design. What is your problem? I explained my test, I want you to explain yours. Could you link me to one, please, & perhaps take me through it so that I may more clearly understand the level of objectivity vs. subjectivity inherant to the method? Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
John Paul,
Mark: No, it's your job to provide evidence it's your argument. John Paul: Been there, done that. At best you are being evasive, at worst you are lying. You have not presented any evidence whatsoever in support of the claim, everything that displays SC must have been designed. YOu have merely asserted it. It is what you are trying to show, after all, it's circular to assume your conclusion in your premise.
The reality is that EVERY time we see specified complexity it is ALWAYS the result of an intelliegent agency. No it isn't, that's your assertion, the conclusion you are attempting to reach. It is circular to assume your conclusion in your premises. Moreover, you have not rebutted the contention that you are guilty of making multiple logical fallacies in your attempt to test design. In assuming SC is always the result of design without actually knowing it commits the logical fallacies; untestability, composition - "Because the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property". In stating, "the reality is that EVERY time we see specified complexity it is ALWAYS the result of an intelliegent agency." you make a circular argument at best. See above.
No assumptions necessary. If we had one case where specified complexity arose via purely natural processes that statement would be falsified. However we have NEVER observed specified complexity arise via purely natural processes. The deduction is when we see SC we can safely infer ID. Er, no, you cannot safely deductively test ID without committing multiple fallacies. Furthermore, & this has been my point since the beginning, your "test" is actually an inference, not an objective test at all. Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 06-16-2004 03:14 PM There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
Mark:
The fossil record consists of objects known as fossils, not my subjective opinion, it is an objective fact. John Paul:Figure you to miss the point completely. here is no way to objectively test the fossils to provide evidence for the ToE. Stratigraphy- until we know how the strata were laid down any fossil evidence will be subjective. Design is a mechanism. No amount of crying can change that fact. For example when someone askes why does a car go forward, sure you can explain the workings of the engine and transfer to the wheels, but ultimately it goes forward because it was designed to do so. I never said design was the mechanism for design. That is your inference. Just like random mutations culled by NS is the alleged mechanism behind evolution, design is the mechanism that drives the changes we see according to ID. Asking how something was designed is irrelevant when trying to determine design and then trying to understand that design. Now you want me to explain the DEF. I am not here to teach I am here to debate. I will wait until you are educated in ID to continue this dialog.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
The reality is that EVERY time we see specified complexity it is ALWAYS the result of an intelliegent agency.
That is NOT an assertion but an observation based on FACTS. If you can falsify that then do so and stop whining. Who is Stephen and what makes him an authority on anything? This message has been edited by John Paul, 06-16-2004 03:21 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
First, I would like to thank John Paul for his willingness to resume discussion in this thread. At a minimum, the exchange of information should prove illuminating to both sides, and who knows, maybe we'll settle something. Stranger things have happened!
Second, I ask the evolutionists to recognize that John Paul is making a very gracious concession by resuming discussion here. Please respect this by giving his arguments careful consideration. Unfortunately I have to post this without having read what has been posted here recently. I hope to have time to read this thread a little later today. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
Predictions made by ID-
If ID were true we would expect to see specified complexity, information-rich systems and/ or irreducible complexity in biological organisms. When we test those predictions we do see specified complexity, information-rich systems and allegedly we also see IC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
John Paul,
The reality is that EVERY time we see specified complexity it is ALWAYS the result of an intelliegent agency. That is NOT an assertion but an observation based on FACTS. If you can falsify that then do so and stop whining. It is not my job to falsify something so that you can't talk about it like a fact, it's your job to show it to be a fact in order that you may use it as a premise in your argument. Given that you haven't shown that everything that displays SC has been designed, I request that you stop talking about it like a fact. If DNA displays SC, then I want you to show me what intelligent agency made it, exactly. If you can't do that (& I'm not interested in your strange idea that your untested inferences are actual tests) then you cannot make the claim that "specified complexity it is ALWAYS the result of an intelliegent agency". Period. This is very simple reasoning.
Who is Stephen and what makes him an authority on anything? Stephen who? Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 06-16-2004 03:37 PM There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
John Paul claims:
quote:What facts? Have you ever observed biological organisms or structures being produced through intelligent agency? You're the one who made this claim, and you claim to have facts. However, you have never offered any evidence except that cars and computers were designed, and probably Stonehenge too. I'm talking about the rather large class of complex things in the world of biology, not one of which has ever to my knowledge been observed being created through intelligent design. Please support your claim. quote:Again, no intelligent agency has ever been observed creating a baby, a tree, a bacterium, or anything in biology. Natural, mechanistic processes such as DNA recombination and cell division are the only ones necessary to explain how these things arise in nature. If, as I suspect, you claim that these processes are themselves the products of intelligent design, please support that claim. regards,Esteban Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MisterOpus1 Inactive Member |
Hi John Paul-
I realize you're in a pretty big dogfight right now and that my post may be somewhat a distraction, but I would really like to get a ID theorist perspective to my question on message #96. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Hehehe, two for two ain't bad. I do want to understand your position, but repeating "Nope, your wrong," doesn't help much. Even if you have explained it before, you might want to give a quick synopsis anyway. Some of our memories aren't that great.
quote: So lets change it to "safely infer". My contention is that we can't safely infer intelligence because there are non-intelligent algorithms that could result in the same phenomena. This is the reason why the Face on Mars is thought to be natural instead of designed, because there are natural mechanisms that can cause the phenomenon. Take the enzyme produced from the nylC gene. It has a very specific activity towards nylon derivatives. It is complex because it is a protein. This specified complexity came about due to a mutation, and the bacteria that had this mutation outcompeted the other bacteria. In the process, the population gained information (specific nylonase activity) through the process of mutation and selection. This is evidence that specified complexity can arise through the auspices of natural selection and mutation. Now that I have shown the rise of specified complexity within the realm of natural mechanisms (mutation and natural selection) you must show one of two things: 1. That the bacteria were designed to produce this mutant through a teleological, goal oriented mechanism. 2. The mechanism that created specified complexity due to intelligent design. If the nylonase gene is not enough evidence for specific complexity via natural mechanisms, please explain why.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
The topic of this thread is, "What is science?", and there still seems to be a lot of disagreement about this. Until a broader consensus is reached, it seems unlikely that the ID discussion will be productive.
Areas where I've noticed the most disagreement:
A couple other random observations:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
AdminNosy,
It is your job to provide the explanation and evidence. Otherwise you would be in violation of forum guidelines. You've had a lot of time now. Backtrack.....Was this addressed to me? Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MisterOpus1 Inactive Member |
Percy-
I agree with your assessment and summary. I was kind of afraid that my question pertaining to malignant tumors may be somewhat drifting off topic, and perhaps it may be worth starting another thread. Since it pertains to an ID topic, however, and since JP's rights are currently suspended for posting in that particular forum (and since I am directly asking him a question), I'm not sure how I might get around this small dilemna at the moment. Perhaps I should just be patient and wait until a broader consensus is reached, as you correctly point out. I also fully agree that a working definition of "specified complexity" is necessary for all to agree on as well.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024