|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Alas, poor Ohio .... EvC related news | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
crashfrog writes: I don't understand how you can say that evolutionists are "devoted" to the theory when we're ready, willing, and eager to toss it on the scrapheap in the face of disconfirming evidence. quote: What you don't seem to understand about how science is done is a lot. Nobel prizes are awarded to scientists who overturn dominant paradigms. Why do you think Einstein became so famous? He showed how Newton's theories were wrong, and by doing so allowed science to take a great leap forward in progress. If we were to find evidence that completely overturned the Theory of Evolution, that scientist would certainly win a Nobel prize, and our understanding of natural processes would take another leap forward. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the ToE isn't maintained to be the best explanation of the evidence because it is dogmatically held. It is maintained because every time we find another fossil, it's in the geologic layer it's predicted to be in, and because we can observe mutation and speciation in organisms in real time, and because the theory survives lots of other tests. That's what each and every one of these experiments and observations are, DS; tests of the theory. Just because the ToE hasn't been falsified doesn't make it unfalsifiable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Ah, but I didn't say he got the Nobel for Relativity.
I said he is famous for it, which is true. However, I certainly see how it could be taken from my message that I made the error. I had my facts right, but crapped up my writing. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-10-2004 03:05 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Everything was "designed", yes. The evidence found in nature strongly supports random mutation combined with natural selection being the designer of life on Earth.
quote: It's THE EVIDENCE and PREDICTIONS that have been BORNE OUT that support and sustain the ToE, not scientists. Scientists work to TEST the theory. Every time we find a new fossil in the layer it was predicted to be in, that is a test of the theory that the theory has passed. What are the predictions of design in nature, and what would falsify a finding of design?
quote: That's because ID isn't a scientific theory, but a philosophy. It makes no testable predictions, so it is useless as science.
quote: The origin of life has nothing to do with the ToE. The ToE applies to life once it got here, not before. What are the testable predictions of Intelligent Design? Cheers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
A reply to message 86 in this thread would be most appreciated, DS.
Thanks in advance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Specifics, DS. I'd like to know specifics. What are the specific patterns and designs that you have personally observed in nature that have lead you to conclude that they have been intelligently designed? In particular, I am interested in how you know that a natural mechanism or source for these patterns and designs does not exist now, or could not possibly be found in the future. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-19-2004 08:54 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Well, the only relevant specific example you gave was that of the honeybee's construction of the honeycomb.
The automobile design is not relevant to evolution because they do not reproduce, and we also know who designed the first automobile, and probably all subsequent automobiles since then. Anyway, the post you sent me to did not answer my second question. Let us assume, since I am too lazy right now to do your research for you, that the honeycomb's construction does not currently have a naturalistic explanation. Let us also say that humans are not smart enough to ever understand how it is that honeybees can make honeycombs. Why do you conclude that our lack of knowledge about how honeybees make honeycomb means that an Intelligent Designer must have done it? How do you tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one we don't understand now, or may never understand? Is the honeybee's construction of honeycomb the only specific example of what you see as ID? Surely you didn't give up on science just because of a single, solitary gap in our knowledge, did you? This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-20-2004 01:20 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: List them. Be specific.
quote: But don't you have a long list of "intelligent designs in nearly every aspect of life, here on earth and throughout the universe"? Science is the process of understanding naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. If this long list of "aspects of life" has been Intelligently Designed, trying to figure out their naturalistic explanations is pointless, because, by definition, you somehow know that there is no naturalistic explanation, right? This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-21-2004 08:58 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Refusing to support your claims will get you nowhere with me. I am sorry that you object to my minimalist approach, but since multiple requests for you to provide support for your claims failed, I decided to get very specific and unambiguous.
quote: No. I am asking you what patterns in nature you think areintelligently designed and why you believe they are. Please list them and the evidence you know them to be ID.
quote: No. I am asking you what patterns in nature you think areintelligently designed and why you believe they are. Please list them and the evidence you know them to be ID.
quote: I am asking you what patterns in nature you think areintelligently designed and why you believe they are. Please list them and the evidence you know them to be ID.
quote: Please provide evidence that the seasons are a result of ID. Please show how all naturalistic explanations of the seasons are false. Please deal especially with the fact of the Earth tilting towards and away from the sun.
quote: Please provide the evidence that ID is the cause of planetary orbits, including refutations of all the physics and cosmology regarding planetary motion.
quote: Excellent! I look forward to reading your detailed, specific answers to my requests for detailed, specific evidence for ID!
quote: Then do so. We've all been waiting.
quote: List them. Be specific.
quote: How do you know it is Intelligently Designed and not a result of purely natural processes? Please explain. Be specific.
quote: How do you know it is Intelligently Designed and not a result of purely natural processes? Please explain. Be specific.
quote: How do you know it is Intelligently Designed and not a result of purely natural processes? Please explain. Be specific.
quote: It's a good thing science doesn't operate via personal opinion, isn't it? I believe you are succumbing to a fallacy called the "Argument from Personal Incredulity" divine fallacy
(argument from incredulity) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
The divine fallacy, or the argument from incredulity, is a species of non sequitur reasoning which goes something like this: I can't figure this out, so God must have done it. Or, This is amazing; therefore, God did it. Or, I can't think of any other explanation; therefore, God did it. Or, this is just too weird; so, God is behind it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Projection.
quote: Sorry, perhaps you have a different definition of what an "answer" is, than me. I was asking for specific positive evidence for intelligent design is specific structures or systems, and how it is you know that any naturalistic explanations are incorrect, or if none are known, will never be known. See, those two conditions are necessary for anyone to reasonably claim that something is intelligently designed. Otherwise, you are just ignoring the scientific method and believing what you want to on faith. ...which is fine, of course, but it isn't rational nor scientific, and nor does it promote our understanding of nature. In fact, it shuts down inquiry altogether.
quote: We cannot prove a negative. You must provide positive evidence for your claims if you want anyone to take them seriously as science. If you just want to belive on faith, then I have no argument with you.
quote: We cannot prove a negative. Scientific ideas are supported by positive evidence. I have never said that an Intelligent Designer cannot possibly exist. All I am asking for is POSITIVE EVIDENCE showing that the "IDer Didit" is a better explanation for observations of natural phenomena that adds to our understanding of how the natural world works. I am also asking for an explanation of how it is you know that there isn't and could never be a naturalistic explanation for the systems and phenomena you have determined to be Intelligently Designed.
quote: No, not evidence for the Designer. I want evidence for the Intelligent Design.
quote: We cannot prove a negative. So far, since I have never seen any sound positive evidence of Intelligent Design, there is no reason to believe it is the source of design in nature.
quote: Nice try, but it won't wash. All we want is positive evidence for your positive claim. If you would like to take things on faith, then I have no argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
what crash said
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024