Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,812 Year: 3,069/9,624 Month: 914/1,588 Week: 97/223 Day: 8/17 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design explains many follies
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 166 of 302 (298829)
03-27-2006 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by John 10:10
03-27-2006 7:24 PM


As for my resume, send me yours and I'll send you mine. Then you can verify mine with my present and previous employers. Let's see who has to goods!
That's a fairly empty boast, since you don't have a public email address on your profile.
At any rate, what would that prove to me? Your side is pretty famous for resume fraud, like that kid who just recently got canned at NASA after he drew attention to himself for telling astrophysicists and cosmologists three times his age that they had to call the Big Bang a "theory". Turned out that he had claimed on his resume a fair number of degrees that he didn't actually have.
Why should I expect any better from you than from your intellectual peers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by John 10:10, posted 03-27-2006 7:24 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by John 10:10, posted 03-28-2006 9:04 AM crashfrog has replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 302 (298837)
03-27-2006 8:43 PM


Stay on topic

Let's stay on topic, and away from personal issues.



ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 168 of 302 (298895)
03-28-2006 3:58 AM


I'm still waiting for anyone in the ID camp to come up with something ID can be used for in any discipline of science
or for them to come up with something that can explain the evidence we have better than ToE can.
the jist of ID is "some ultra-powerful being we cannot discribe in any detail, disigned everything using unknown means that we can't detect over a time-frame we can't figure out, yet we believe this even though we can't explain it, yet it is better than the theory of evolution, becuase it just is.."
so how is it science again? and how do we learn anything from it?
This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 03-28-2006 03:59 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by John 10:10, posted 03-28-2006 9:18 AM ReverendDG has replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 169 of 302 (298946)
03-28-2006 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by crashfrog
03-27-2006 7:46 PM


Now my email address is visible. Please email your resume to me, and I will check your credentials out. Then you can do the same for me when I send you my resume.
You may think my school and my employers can be forged as well. If so, they will simply tell you they never heard of me.
If you want to compare 1040 forms, we can do that too! But you would just say I forged that too!

The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2006 7:46 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by crashfrog, posted 03-28-2006 9:08 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 175 by Admin, posted 03-28-2006 10:13 AM John 10:10 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 170 of 302 (298947)
03-28-2006 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by John 10:10
03-28-2006 9:04 AM


You're the one making the claim; you first. It's off-topic, anyway.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-28-2006 09:08 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by John 10:10, posted 03-28-2006 9:04 AM John 10:10 has not replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 171 of 302 (298950)
03-28-2006 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by ReverendDG
03-28-2006 3:58 AM


I have said over and over again that ID cannot prove Creator God is the cause of intracately complex existance any more than the ToE can prove it is the cause of intracately complex existance.
The proof lies in what is logically reasonable, and what is not logically reasonable. ID is and always will be the most logically reasonable explanation why the ToE is folly. The ToE has no way to explain how, assuming a spark of life suddenly transforms inorganic matter to organic matter, this spark of life knows deterministically where it's going so that fully formed creatures are eventually formed.

The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by ReverendDG, posted 03-28-2006 3:58 AM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by crashfrog, posted 03-28-2006 9:25 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 173 by Chiroptera, posted 03-28-2006 9:26 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 174 by Parasomnium, posted 03-28-2006 9:49 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 177 by sidelined, posted 03-28-2006 1:13 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 178 by ReverendDG, posted 03-28-2006 2:24 PM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 184 by subbie, posted 04-01-2006 11:24 AM John 10:10 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 172 of 302 (298951)
03-28-2006 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by John 10:10
03-28-2006 9:18 AM


this spark of life knows deterministically where it's going so that fully formed creatures are eventually formed.
Why does the spark have to know? I don't understand this line of reasoning, and you've consistently ignored posts where you've been asked to explain and where your implicit assumptions have been unpacked and refuted.
Are you just having a hard time with the idea of "discussion", or what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by John 10:10, posted 03-28-2006 9:18 AM John 10:10 has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 173 of 302 (298952)
03-28-2006 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by John 10:10
03-28-2006 9:18 AM


quote:
The proof lies in what is logically reasonable, and what is not logically reasonable.
Actually, the "proof" (if proof is the correct word to use here) lies in what the evidence suggests. And there is an overwhelming abundance of evidence that all known species have evolved from a common ancestor. You can try to "logically" explain it away, but physical data always trumps logic. That is why modern science has been much more productive than the purely deductive logical methods used by the classical Greeks.
-
quote:
The ToE has no way to explain how, assuming a spark of life suddenly transforms inorganic matter to organic matter, this spark of life knows deterministically where it's going so that fully formed creatures are eventually formed.
Perhaps true, but since no one claims that a "spark of life" knows anything, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by John 10:10, posted 03-28-2006 9:18 AM John 10:10 has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 174 of 302 (298955)
03-28-2006 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by John 10:10
03-28-2006 9:18 AM


Straw-man
John 10:10 writes:
ID is and always will be the most logically reasonable explanation why the ToE is folly.
Except that that is not what ID is intended for. Just like Copernicus' heliocentric model of the solar system was not meant to explain why its geocentric predecessor was folly, but instead to explain the data of astronomical observations, is ID not intended to explain why the theory of evolution is folly, but instead to explain the presence of complex living structures in nature. Unfortunately for ID, the theory of evolution does a much better job at explaining this, because it does not, like ID, posit the existence of an unprovable Entity that needs an explanation of Its Own. Thus, the theory of evolution escapes Occam's razor, which cannot be said of ID.
The ToE has no way to explain how, assuming a spark of life suddenly transforms inorganic matter to organic matter, this spark of life knows deterministically where it's going so that fully formed creatures are eventually formed.
The theory of evolution does not need to explain this, because the theory of evolution does not deal with sparks of life that "know deterministically" where they are going, anymore than the theory of gravity deals with particles of mass that know deterministically what path they will take through space-time. They just take the path that the laws of nature prescribe.
The picture you paint of the theory of evolution is a straw-man.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by John 10:10, posted 03-28-2006 9:18 AM John 10:10 has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12997
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 175 of 302 (298962)
03-28-2006 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by John 10:10
03-28-2006 9:04 AM


Topic Drift Alert
Hi John 10:10,
I thought I'd reply generally to your post in the hope of finally ending this diversion from the main topic. This isn't directed at you personally but to everyone involved in the digression.
Here at EvC Forum, the validity of one's position is judged not by what university you attended, not by how many and how advanced your degrees are, not by your income and not by your chosen field of endeavor, but by how well you advance and support your position.
Hopefully that ends the matter. If anyone wants to play "My salary's bigger than yours" or "My university is better than yours," please take it to the [forum=-14]. Further digressions along these lines in this thread will draw short suspensions of posting privileges.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by John 10:10, posted 03-28-2006 9:04 AM John 10:10 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by crashfrog, posted 03-28-2006 11:50 AM Admin has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 176 of 302 (298978)
03-28-2006 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Admin
03-28-2006 10:13 AM


My apologies
Sorry. The whole thing was infantile.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Admin, posted 03-28-2006 10:13 AM Admin has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 177 of 302 (298997)
03-28-2006 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by John 10:10
03-28-2006 9:18 AM


John 10:10
Now that the Ad Hominem part of the debate is past could you please
respond to the questions I asked pertaining to your statements?
John 10:10 writes:
These are your words, not mine. I have a degree in Engineering Physics and understand the laws of nuclear physics and how atoms behave. But understanding this does not tell me how matter came to exist in the first place, nor does it tell you non-ID caused matter to exist in the first place.
I asked a question of you concerning this with this post
Really? When an electron emits a photon where does the photon come from?
To which you replied.
John 10:10
) There is a big big difference in understanding the laws of nuclear physics, how atoms behave, and how to harness the energy contained in the atom/electron than in knowing where the elementary particles of the atom came from. True science is in knowing and proving the how, not in speculating on the where. Pure and simple, the elementary particles of the atom came from from our ID Creator who made the universe, the earth, the dirt, and the electron/photon.
I then adjusted the question here as well as added others.
{sigh} Ok, then, let us rephrase to fit the shift in goalposts.
How can you observe and prove that a photon is not within the electron before the electron emits a photon? How can you observe and prove an electron emits a photon?
How can you observe and prove that the elementary particles came from your ID creator?
Now that the questions have been asked can you answer them so that you may maintain the validity of your assertion to Chiroptera in post # 138
Where I draw the line is in applying what we can actually observe and prove today, and declare that this definitely proves what happened in the past when it comes to understanding how organic and inorganic matter came to exist.
{italics mine}
I await your reply.

Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation . . .Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
Richard Feynman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by John 10:10, posted 03-28-2006 9:18 AM John 10:10 has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 178 of 302 (299016)
03-28-2006 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by John 10:10
03-28-2006 9:18 AM


I have said over and over again that ID cannot prove Creator God is the cause of intracately complex existance any more than the ToE can prove it is the cause of intracately complex existance.
what is is the meaning of complex to you and what logic led you to believe this is a requirement of the ToE? You need to read more about ID since in fact that is what they are claiming..that a god designed everything
The proof lies in what is logically reasonable, and what is not logically reasonable. ID is and always will be the most logically reasonable explanation why the ToE is folly. The ToE has no way to explain how, assuming a spark of life suddenly transforms inorganic matter to organic matter, this spark of life knows deterministically where it's going so that fully formed creatures are eventually formed.
how is ID reasonable? Your understanding of theories, science and even what ID says seems to be faulty. thats just it how can you assume it was a "spark of life?" and that it had intelligence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by John 10:10, posted 03-28-2006 9:18 AM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by John 10:10, posted 03-31-2006 1:40 PM ReverendDG has replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 179 of 302 (299822)
03-31-2006 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by ReverendDG
03-28-2006 2:24 PM


You write,
"what is is the meaning of complex to you and what logic led you to believe this is a requirement of the ToE? You need to read more about ID since in fact that is what they are claiming..that a god designed everything"
If the ToE does not attempt to state/prove it is the cause of intracately complex existance, then what does the ToE hang its hat on?
"how is ID reasonable? Your understanding of theories, science and even what ID says seems to be faulty. thats just it how can you assume it was a "spark of life?" and that it had intelligence?"
I assume no such thing! Some eminent non-ID scientists believe life possibly formed out there some where, and was transported here via comets. [Some also believe water's existance on earth came from a hail of comets.] If so, how was life formed out there? How does organic matter know where it needs to go to form intracately complex cells and organs, let alone intracately complex creatures that can reproduce with all the cells and organs in the right places?
That's what ID is all about, and why it's the best and most reasonable answer to life's complex existance. Call my reasoning faulty if you will, but the shoe in on the other foot.

The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by ReverendDG, posted 03-28-2006 2:24 PM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by crashfrog, posted 03-31-2006 2:04 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 181 by ReverendDG, posted 03-31-2006 8:14 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 182 by sidelined, posted 04-01-2006 2:44 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 183 by Parasomnium, posted 04-01-2006 6:58 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 185 by RAZD, posted 04-01-2006 11:29 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 186 by Chiroptera, posted 04-01-2006 12:18 PM John 10:10 has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 180 of 302 (299824)
03-31-2006 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by John 10:10
03-31-2006 1:40 PM


If the ToE does not attempt to state/prove it is the cause of intracately complex existance, then what does the ToE hang its hat on?
The theory of evolution is a model that describes the history and diversity of life on Earth, not "the cause of intricately complex existence", whatever that is.
Evolution is a theory of biology; an explanation of why life on Earth is the way it is and how it was in the past, too. It's not a model of the universe or an explanation of the meaning of existence. It's just a model that biologists use.
How does organic matter know where it needs to go to form intracately complex cells and organs, let alone intracately complex creatures that can reproduce with all the cells and organs in the right places?
That's what ID is all about, and why it's the best and most reasonable answer to life's complex existance.
I don't see how what you've just written proves that "ID is the best and most reasonable answer." Your debating tactic seems to be to assert that life is "complex", whatever that means, and then assert that that proves that ID is reasonable.
That doesn't make any sense to me. An argument that proves ID is the most reasonable explanation would, for instance, provide a measure for how to judge which theories are more reasonable than other theories, and then apply that measure to ID and evolution and show how how ID wins out. Simply asserting that ID is more reasonable than evolution merely demonstrates that you don't know how to judge what is reasonable and what is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by John 10:10, posted 03-31-2006 1:40 PM John 10:10 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