Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is science?
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 121 of 152 (115864)
06-16-2004 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by John Paul
06-16-2004 4:18 PM


Re: what is science?
John Paul,
Figure you to miss the point completely. here is no way to objectively test the fossils to provide evidence for the ToE.
Say it as much as you like. Shout it LOUD, JP, maybe it will come true. The fact is that the fossil record is ordered stratigraphically, correlatable globally. That's objectively determined. Perhaps you have an understanding of the word "objective" that is personal, & you'd like to inform us of?
Not only are you in conflict with science, but most creationists understand there is a fossil record to be explained. Maybe this is your get out clause? Denial, anyone?
Stratigraphy- until we know how the strata were laid down any fossil evidence will be subjective.
No, it won't.........The fact is that the fossil record is ordered stratigraphically, correlatable globally. It's objective, deal with it. Until you can say, "no, it's not objective", & show it, you have no point whatsoever.
Design is a mechanism. No amount of crying can change that fact.
No objection, but as I pointed out, ID isn't just about design. It's implicitly about the mechanism of construction too, & your theory MUST say something about it if you want to remain consistent.
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.
No, you are here to support your assertions, like it or not. If you can't, then you LOSE. It's a simple rule understood by schoolchildren.
Show me why a DEF is evidence of design or retract. I am incredibly suspicious of your coyness.
Witnessing is for the pulpit, not the debate forum.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 4:18 PM John Paul has not replied

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


Message 122 of 152 (115867)
06-16-2004 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by mark24
06-16-2004 7:46 PM


Re: Just to be clear
LOL, "just to be clear" and I mess it up.
Sorry Mark No, it is not directed at you.
That is directed at JP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by mark24, posted 06-16-2004 7:46 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 11:48 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 123 of 152 (115868)
06-16-2004 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by MisterOpus1
06-16-2004 7:47 PM


Hi, MisterOpus1!
Either I mis-clicked, or the software has one more bug than I thought, but I intended a general reply. My Message 118 wasn't directed at you, but was an attempt to clarify the context of the discussion and identify issues requiring clarification. I hope the other participants give it a look.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by MisterOpus1, posted 06-16-2004 7:47 PM MisterOpus1 has not replied

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


Message 124 of 152 (116026)
06-17-2004 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Percy
06-16-2004 6:58 PM


That Science Thing
I think the design argument strikes at the heart of science, which is the search for what nature does on its own. If the weather can be understood in terms of atmospheric pressure and electrical polarity, then appeals to an intervening intelligence need not be made. If a rainbow can be explained by optical refraction and the molecular structure of water, the need to credit a designer is gone. If the biological diversity of life on Earth can be understood through genetic mutation and natural selection, then a designing intelligence is superfluous to our understanding.
John Paul makes this statement in message #88 of this thread:
quote:
Forensic scientists also try to determine natural from un-natural. Arson investigators do the same as do SETI researchers. The point being that we already have in place processes that aid us in detecting intelligent design. Why would biology be exempt from these processes? If nature can create the specified complexity we see in living cells it would stand to reason that nature could create an arrow head or an axe-looking object or any number of alleged tools. IOW by questioning the validity of ID in biology you also question every venue that uses design detection processes.
[emphasis mine]
I have no idea why it should be true that if biological organisms or structures are the product of undirected processes, then every other artifact on Earth must also be the product of the same natural mechanisms. No one here proposed that all specified complexity is the result of natural processes. Our endeavor to understand Nature doesn’t prevent us from understanding the properties and capabilities of human design. In contrast, it seems that in their crusade to find intelligent design, some seekers fail to acknowledge the self-sustaining abilities of the universe.
While they claim to recognize the hallmarks of design in biology due to their similarity to human design, the IDC folks also claim that the identity of the biological designer is irrelevant. The ironic thing is that design research in fields such as arson investigation or forensics depends very heavily on knowing the methods, motives, and identity of the proposed designer. Arson investigators, for example, would have to make a plausible case that a fire started in a way and in a place that a human agent could conceivably have set it. Similarly, the suspicion that a building's owner set the fire for profit would disappear if the building were not insured. Dembski uses a good example in the fraud case of NJ election commissioner Nicholas Caputo. Supposedly the candidate listed first on a ballot usually has the advantage in an election, and the Democrats (Caputo’s party) ended up first on the ballot forty out of the forty-one years that Caputo oversaw the elections. He claimed he tossed a coin to determine the order. Of course I agree with Dembski that this is a clear-cut case of design on Caputo’s part, but that’s just because we know Caputo’s identity, his title, his ability to determine the order of the candidates, and his political affiliation. Would we conclude design if there were no demonstrable advantage to having your candidate appear first on the ballot? Or if Caputo had been a Republican?
Science is about understanding the design that needs no designer. Intelligent design creationists can’t accept the design abilities of Nature. They don’t give due credit to the mutation-selection processes that (over billions of years) have created a biosphere full of designs which are wonderful and unlikely, but completely unlike any designs attributable to purposeful human agency.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Percy, posted 06-16-2004 6:58 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 12:00 PM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 127 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 12:00 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 152 (116035)
06-17-2004 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by AdminNosy
06-16-2004 8:35 PM


Re: Just to be clear
1) Science already uses processes to detect design- fact.
2) MrH says that we observe humans building structures and that is why archaeologists infer ID when they observe similar structures. To respond to MrH's point I will link to "natural bridges". I do so because if we follow MrH's logic- we see humans building bridges, the bridges linked to must have been constructed by humans- but they were no (at least no one infers that they were):
Photographs of Natural Bridges National Monument, Utah: Owachomo Bridge - underneath
Photographs of Natural Bridges National Monument, Utah: Kachina Bridge, from the overlook
Sipapu Bridge, from the highway: Natural Bridges National Monument, Utah
Owachomo Bridge - distant view: Natural Bridges National Monument, Utah
3) For some (unknown?) reason evolutionists say that those processes cannot be applied to biology.
4) Biological organisms reproduce. This reproduction process is of itself IC:
Cell biologist Joseph Francis argues that even in simple bacteria, the most basic cell functions display irreducibly complex mechanismsfor instance, cell division. This article considers the origin of an irreducibly complex cell division apparatus in the light of protocell theory and intelligent design theory, and concludes that intelligent design is a better explanation.
see: http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od201/peeringdbb201.htm
5) Evolutionists say that ID in biology is based on ignorance and that in the future we may find the answers. The response is obvious. The future may also confirm IC is real and ID is the only solution. Also theories cannot rest on what the future may or may not bring. Theories have to rest on our current state of knowledge. Theories have and do change in light of new knowledge.
The reality is that ID is based on our current state of knowledge.
6) It has been posted that by inferring ID researchers would just give-up. That couldn't be further from the truth. Archaeologists don't just give up when they make a find. There is still much to do.
7) Evolutionists ask other questions like who is the designer and how did this designer design? Both of these questions could be answered by science if we let it. (archaeologists do this by studying the object in question). The answer to either question is not necessary to detecting and understanding the design. If we knew the answers we wouldn't need science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by AdminNosy, posted 06-16-2004 8:35 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-17-2004 12:20 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 145 by Percy, posted 06-17-2004 3:27 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 152 (116037)
06-17-2004 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by MrHambre
06-17-2004 11:25 AM


Re: That Science Thing
MrH:
Science is about understanding the design that needs no designer.
John Paul:
What a crock! Tell that to archaeologists and anthropologists who look at artifacts.
MrH:
Intelligent design creationists can’t accept the design abilities of Nature.
John Paul:
Despite the FACT there aren't any intelligent design creationists, naturalists have never shown that nature can account for specified complexity.
MrH:
I think the design argument strikes at the heart of science, which is the search for what nature does on its own.
John Paul:
That is not true. I have already pointed to sciences that do no such thing.
MrH:
If the biological diversity of life on Earth can be understood through genetic mutation and natural selection, then a designing intelligence is superfluous to our understanding.
John Paul:
That is one big IF. Also ID is more about how life came to be in the first place.
MrH:
I have no idea why it should be true that if biological organisms or structures are the product of undirected processes, then every other artifact on Earth must also be the product of the same natural mechanisms.
John Paul:
That is not what I said. IF life is the product of purely natural processes, and it is the most complex structure we observe, it stands to reason that nature could create something as simple as an arrow-head, an axe and tool-like structures.
MrH:
While they claim to recognize the hallmarks of design in biology due to their similarity to human design, the IDC folks also claim that the identity of the biological designer is irrelevant.
John Paul:
That is right. We do NOT need to know the identity of the designer to detect and understand the design. That is a fact. However by understanding the design we may be able to make some inferences about the designer.
MrH:
The ironic thing is that design research in fields such as arson investigation or forensics depends very heavily on knowing the methods, motives, and identity of the proposed designer.
John Paul:
That is backwards. They determine the methods via research. The motives may never be known and the identity is found via the research.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by MrHambre, posted 06-17-2004 11:25 AM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Percy, posted 06-17-2004 3:47 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 152 (116038)
06-17-2004 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by MrHambre
06-17-2004 11:25 AM


Re: That Science Thing
edit duplicate post
This message has been edited by John Paul, 06-17-2004 11:01 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by MrHambre, posted 06-17-2004 11:25 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 128 of 152 (116042)
06-17-2004 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by John Paul
06-17-2004 11:48 AM


reproduction IC?
Biological organisms reproduce. This reproduction process is of itself IC.
I don't agree (on the IC part). Reproduction can be reduced to DNA replication, which at it's heart is a chemical reaction. Taking apart a bacterium as we see it today gives the appearance of being IC, but most of the processes that are included could have evolved to aid DNA replication, and thus reproduction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 11:48 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 12:26 PM pink sasquatch has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 152 (116045)
06-17-2004 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by pink sasquatch
06-17-2004 12:20 PM


Re: reproduction IC?
PS:
I don't agree (on the IC part). Reproduction can be reduced to DNA replication, which at it's heart is a chemical reaction.
John Paul:
Funny that scientists disagree with you. Did you read the article I linked to? Would DNA replicate outside of a cell? No because it needs proteins to help it.
PS:
Taking apart a bacterium as we see it today gives the appearance of being IC, but most of the processes that are included could have evolved to aid DNA replication, and thus reproduction.
John Paul:
That is the assertion but can you substantiate it with any evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-17-2004 12:20 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Percy, posted 06-17-2004 4:14 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 150 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-17-2004 5:12 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 152 (116048)
06-17-2004 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by MisterOpus1
06-16-2004 1:52 PM


Re: Inference and Investigation
Hi John Paul-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True but we have observed intelligent agents design objects that exhibit specified complexity and we have observed intelligent agents designing information-rich systems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MisterOpus1:
I was wondering if we could maybe expand on your statement here with another example - cancerous tumors. Could we not agree that cancer cells fit the category of specified complexity, and could therefore infer an intelligent agent somewhere in its creation and/or evolutionary processes?
John Paul:
If cancer cells were cells unto themselves, ie not a part of an organism, then I would say that yes we would infer ID. However we never see cancer cells except in an organism, which we would infer that organism is a product of ID. I would infer cancer cell are a defect in the design. A defect that ID should be able to correct. How so? Once we start looking at organisms as a result of ID we will start looking at genomes as an intelligent construct. I believe this will help us decipher genomes and by doing that help us fix the defects.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by MisterOpus1, posted 06-16-2004 1:52 PM MisterOpus1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by MisterOpus1, posted 06-17-2004 1:52 PM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 152 (116049)
06-17-2004 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by MrHambre
06-16-2004 4:43 PM


Re: How To Debate Like John Paul
MrH:
Again, no intelligent agency has ever been observed creating a baby, a tree, a bacterium, or anything in biology.
John Paul:
Really? Humans create baby humans. Humans would be considered an intelligent agent. Nature has never been observed giving life. Nature has been observed taking life.
Why is it up to me to support my claim when you can't support yours?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by MrHambre, posted 06-16-2004 4:43 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by MrHambre, posted 06-17-2004 1:02 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 133 by Loudmouth, posted 06-17-2004 1:16 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 06-17-2004 4:30 PM John Paul has not replied

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


Message 132 of 152 (116059)
06-17-2004 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by John Paul
06-17-2004 12:35 PM


Re: How To Debate Like John Paul
John Paul, in response to my request that he provide an example of intelligent agency being responsible for the design of a biological organism or structure, claims:
quote:
Humans create baby humans. Humans would be considered an intelligent agent. Nature has never been observed giving life. Nature has been observed taking life.
I don't consider this outrageous claim support at all for his position, and if anything it constitutes an admission of defeat. Humans do not sequence the genomes of their offspring and consciously administer the process of cell division that makes a fertilized egg into a baby. This is not an example of intelligent design, it's controlled by the biochemical DNA replication process. This natural process, too, has never been shown to depend on intelligent agency.
However, by John Paul's logic, even trees and bacteria are intelligent agents, since they 'create' other trees and bacteria!!
Once again, John Paul has dodged his responsibility to show one thing in the entire realm of biology that can be demonstrated to be the product of intelligent design.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 12:35 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 1:17 PM MrHambre has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 152 (116065)
06-17-2004 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by John Paul
06-17-2004 12:35 PM


Re: How To Debate Like John Paul
quote:
John Paul:
Really? Humans create baby humans. Humans would be considered an intelligent agent. Nature has never been observed giving life. Nature has been observed taking life.
Do they create babies the same way they create artifacts, buildings, cars, etc.? Did you pick the sex of your baby? Did you design the genes that went into your babies genome? Did you have a certain outcome in mind? Did you consciously design new IC systems into your baby so that other people would know that the baby was made by human design?
OR, did you rely on the natural process of gametogenesis with random cross overs via meiosis, fertilization, placental impregnation, natural hormonal feedback between mother and fetus, etc. These are natural processes that are not under the control of humans, they are not deisgned by humans, and are therefore not design functions. The only thing you controlled was the chances that fertilization would occur, hardly what I would call design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 12:35 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 1:20 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 152 (116066)
06-17-2004 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by MrHambre
06-17-2004 1:02 PM


Re: How To Debate Like John Paul
MrH:
John Paul, in response to my request that he provide an example of intelligent agency being responsible for the design of a biological organism or structure, claims:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humans create baby humans. Humans would be considered an intelligent agent. Nature has never been observed giving life. Nature has been observed taking life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Paul:
MrH's continued dishonesty is duly noted. My above response was NOT in response to MrH's request that I "provide an example of intelligent agency being responsible for the design of a biological organism or structure". Rather it was in response to this:
MrH:
Again, no intelligent agency has ever been observed creating a baby, a tree, a bacterium, or anything in biology.
MrH:
Humans do not sequence the genomes of their offspring and consciously administer the process of cell division that makes a fertilized egg into a baby.
John Paul:
How do you know? Are you saying that nature does sequence the genomes? Where is your evidence?
MrH:
This is not an example of intelligent design, it's controlled by the biochemical DNA replication process. This natural process, too, has never been shown to depend on intelligent agency.
John Paul:
Can you provide any evidence that DNA replication or the reproduction of a cell or cellular differentiation is a natural process, ie created by nature?
Once again MrH has refused to show that nature can do anything in biology.
And yes I consider bacteria and trees to be intelligent agents. You may not understand their intelligence but that does not mean it doesn't exist.
This message has been edited by John Paul, 06-17-2004 12:31 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by MrHambre, posted 06-17-2004 1:02 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by MrHambre, posted 06-17-2004 1:35 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 137 by MrHambre, posted 06-17-2004 1:37 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 149 by Percy, posted 06-17-2004 5:08 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 152 (116069)
06-17-2004 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Loudmouth
06-17-2004 1:16 PM


Re: How To Debate Like John Paul
LM:
OR, did you rely on the natural process of gametogenesis with random cross overs via meiosis, fertilization, placental impregnation, natural hormonal feedback between mother and fetus, etc.
John Paul:
Please provide any evidence that these processes originated naturally.
Intelligent design does not hold that only humans can produce ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Loudmouth, posted 06-17-2004 1:16 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Loudmouth, posted 06-17-2004 5:18 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