|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6110 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design explains many follies | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Ha ha ha ha ha. I think it was crashfrog who pointed out that engineers work with things that are designed, and so they see the world in terms of design. Me, I have some mathematics training in a broad area called "analysis", where continuity is important; so it appears that I see the world as a large continuum with few, if any, discontinuities. "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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 641 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Your field is quite different.. to be sure.
However, look at soem of the key 'creationist' players. Phillips is a laywer. Dembki is into mathamatics. Jorge Fernandez always give the fact he designed things for the army, and has a patenant has his scientific background.Duane Gish is a Chemist (no biologist). Henry Morris was into hydrolics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The proof for the incredibly small chance you are over exagerrating is in the fact that the small chance has occured. If the small chance has occured then its probability of occuring is 1. Someone alluded to this earlier in saying that any thing that has occured in the past has an occurence of 1. Unfortunately this line of reasoning positively screams begging the question. If I stood up in court and the prosecution showed a line of reasoning with the conclusion "The chances that he is not guilty based on the forensics, is 1 in 1075. This well beyond reasonable doubt. In order for him not to be guilty somebody with the same fingerprints, blood type and tested DNA sequence would also need to have a suitable motive to commit the crime." Then me retorting "But the proof that I am not guilty is that the scenario you described happened, so the probability is 1" The line of reasoning you are using has validity in certain circumstances, but I don't think so in this one. For example if the chances of two people having the same DNA sequence is 1 in a million, and a DNA test of a random sample comes back with me as a suspect I can reasonably say that the 1 in a million is meaningless, that has now happened (the odds of it coming back with me as a suspect are now 1) and the chances of the DNA sample actually being mine is something like 6000-1 against (there are about 6,000 million people on the earth, so (with a couple of assumptions) about 6,000 other people will have this same sequence of DNA).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Discreet Label Member (Idle past 5092 days) Posts: 272 Joined: |
Hehe okay, i didn't think that far ahead in terms of how a past event probabilty 1 thought process would influnce other thinking.
Actually what would be interesting, and possibly a thread should be started on it, why the choices between right and left handed life? and in the context of ID, why one over the other?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
If you use the search function to find terms like 'chirality' or 'racemic' you should find a couple of extant threads on the topic of handedness that you might bump.
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
All that will result from this post is more attacks on the messenger, rather than addressing the message. More? Trying to be a victim rather than someone who has yet to substantiate his assertions (but still keeps making them)? Pointing out that you are guilty of (x\y\z} behavior (along with the evidence of it) is not an ad hominem argument but a statement of fact.
Since no proof is required for those who believe in the incredible incredible incredible ... Yes, religious faith is like that. However science does not try to prove theories, just to test them and invalidate the wrong or incomplete ones. It's not a matter of believing in something "incredible" but rather with eliminating the things that don't work -- rather like the well known Sherlock Holmes' line "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" -- that is what science does. That is why I asked you to "Prove that it didn't happen." (in message 202). You have not done that, but only repeated your unsubstantiated assertion. Only if you can prove that it didn't happen can you eliminate it, no matter how improbable it appears (to you). As noted (in message 196), "the probability of an event happening after it has already happened is 1. This is the basic problem with any argument based on probability: it doesn't matter." And arguing that it couldn't have happened is rather foolish. And a mathematical calculation has not yet prevented something from happening in the natural world. Usually, an error is found in the calculation, eh? Whenever a model fails to model reality it is the fault of the model, not of reality.
...and proof seems to be required only for those who believe in ID, consider this:... Actually I asked you to substantiate your probability numbers with your calculations, not someone elses ... and this doesn't give the actual factual calculations, just the resulsts. What this shows is that you are still relying on the appeal to authority and not doing your homework. What did you do to validate those "calculations" eh? Can I suggest you read {the old improbable probability problem} thread in the {Is It Science?} forum, particular message 1 and message 23 ("added comments from another thread")? Based on what is printed in your uncredited {copy-and=paste} article it appears that they make several of the errors listed in that thread. You can post your refutations of the listed errors in these calculations there (rather than tie this thread up with them eh?) - and please show original work (pasting quotes from websites and not crediting them to their sources is plagarism, and highly unprofessional). As noted previously "Oh, and tell us how you rule out all the stuff that you don't know" (in message 196) -- you have not done this. Let's see, to summarize: argument from authority (again), providing someone else's results but no calculations (plagarism?), results that have erroneous thinking involved (that you have not corrected), and failure to eliminate all other possibilities ... looks like your "probability" calculations are not worth the bandwidth it takes to post them. As for a more realistic look at the probability of life happening ... you might want to read my column {RAZD - Building Blocks of Life}. Now the main topic of this thread is "Intelligent Design explains many follies" -- So perhaps you can enlighten us on what has been explained by ID to date. So far all I have seen are a series of logical fallacies. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3024 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
You write,
Now the main topic of this thread is "Intelligent Design explains many follies" -- So perhaps you can enlighten us on what has been explained by ID to date. Since evolution cannot reasonably explain how the existing universe started from something smaller than a pinhead and then prove how life developed into incredibly complex plant, animal and human life forms on earth, Intelligent Design is and always will be the best explanation for the how of our existance. Once one comes to understand and believe the how, then one is ready for the why. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
John 10:10 writes: Since evolution cannot reasonably explain how the existing universe started from something smaller than a pinhead... I think information about topics like this is just what people are looking for from you. Though evolution has nothing to do with cosmology and "how the existing universe started from something smaller than a pinhear", it is still very relevant to this topic to understand how ID explains the origin of the universe. For example, you might start by providing the ID explanation for the red shift and accelerating expansion.
... and then prove how life developed into incredibly complex plant, animal and human life forms on earth, Intelligent Design is and always will be the best explanation for the how of our existance. And in the same way as for cosmology, it would be very helpful to understand ID's explanation for "how life developed into incredibly complex plan, animal and human life forms." For example, you could provide ID's explanation for how life first came about, and how ID changes the DNA in organisms over time to cause speciation. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 641 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Why should a theory that deals with biology have to explain anything that has to do with cosmology?
That question is definately a strawman arguement. That is like saying nuclear engineering is worthless because it does not explain the origina of the honey bee.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
I know it's easy to miss but I think we moved from Probabilities about a Brazillion Messages ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Well, current theories of cosmology do explain very well how the contemporary universe is the result of "something smaller than a pinhead" -- it is where, how, and/or why the "pinhead" came to be that cosmology does not explain (and that may not even be a scientific question). -
quote: If by "prove" you mean "be confirmed through a massive amount of very good evidence in many different scientific fields using a variety of different methodologies", then you are wrong: the evolution of life on earth has been "proven" in this sense. -
quote: Completely wrong and illogical. Unless and until positive evidence in favor of ID is presented, then only alternative to the theory of evolution is to say, "I don't know why the world is the way it is." "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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4139 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
Since evolution cannot reasonably explain how the existing universe started from something smaller than a pinhead and then prove how life developed into incredibly complex plant, animal and human life forms on earth, Intelligent Design is and always will be the best explanation for the how of our existance.
nor is evolution about the universe, nor is it about how life started that is abiogenesis. how does UD explain anything>?
Once one comes to understand and believe the how, then one is ready for the why.
ok explain the how then? explain how ID explains what we see in lifeforms better than evolution, this has been what i've been asking hmm agood number of times so far
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You write, Now the main topic of this thread is "Intelligent Design explains many follies" -- So perhaps you can enlighten us on what has been explained by ID to date. Thus taking advantage of this one line to dodge all the rebuttals of your previous weak (if not non-existent) arguments (especially with probabilities), to dodge having to answer what you cannot answer or to acknowledge the errors of your ways. That's okay. I know you can't properly answer them without having to acknowledge the massive errors in the logic you employed, so I will take this as a concession that your previous arguments were invalid. That's only fair eh? That you don't substantiate your arguments or answer when they are shown to be invalid must mean that you agree they are invalid, yes? Especially the probabilities ... after all you were directed to other threads that dealt with the issue in greater detail, and you didn't answer there either. Good. Now lets move on:
Since evolution cannot reasonably explain how the existing universe started from something smaller than a pinhead ... Whether the universe started from "something smaller than a pinhead" or not is just a theory in cosmology, one of several that make reasonable attempts to explain how the universe may have come into being from a purely scientific method. Have you heard of "'Brane" theory? It's a different take on the issue. But certainly no reasonable person would expect a biological science to explain something in physics, right?
... and then prove how life developed into incredibly complex plant, animal and human life forms on earth, Intelligent Design is and always will be the best explanation for the how of our existance. And yet evolution does provide a very reasonable explanation of how species change through time - substantiated by several observations of this occurring - and seeing as this is what evolution is all about, that is all that can reasonably be expected of it ... by a reasonable person, right? Evolution is more than adequate to explain the diversity of life that exists in the world today, it also explains all the dead-ends and false starts - the diversity of life that once existed and that has occurred in the last 3.5 billion years but is no more. How does the concept of "Intelligent Design" explain the failed designs? How does it explain those "follies" eh?
Intelligent Design is and always will be the best explanation for the how of our existance. Once one comes to understand and believe the how, then one is ready for the why. Before we jump to more concussions based on a lack of information, lets get back to probability issue one more time: What is the probability that an "Intelligent Designer" would chose just this planet in all the universe for life, and then what is the probability that {he/she/it/they/...} would chose carbon to build the basic structures, and then the probability that {he/she/it/they/...} would chose a primate lifeform of all those available, especially one that has lost it's prehensile tail (think how handy that would be to wipe sweat from your brow as you work to fix the car or whatever eh?) and has poor vision, and ... what is the probability that an "Intelligent Designer" would design things just the way they are? What do you think eh? Close enough to zero for you? Enjoy. This message has been edited by RAZD, 04*10*2006 09:37 PM we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
RAZD writes: That's okay. I know you can't properly answer them without having to acknowledge the massive errors in the logic you employed, so I will take this as a concession that your previous arguments were invalid. Braggadocio declarations are poor debate form, and this thread is not discussing how right or wrong anyone is (apologies for adjectizing a noun - oops, and more apologies for verbing a noun). John does present some perplexing contradictions. He claims a background in physics and professional employment with considerable compensation, and this is inconsistent with the faith-based arguments he offered when he started, and with his later inability to offer any tangible support for ID, indeed to even recognize that such was required. The contradictions are made clear from John's own posts. In these next four quotes John claims little scientific background and then proves it by making a few howler errors:
John 10:10 in Message 69 writes: Since I am just a simpleton man of faith in amongst many sophisticated thinkers, I must confess I can't compete with your intelligence, but I will offer a few observations; John 10:10 in Message 122 writes: The Theory of Evolution is not primarily a theory of how species that exist continue to function and to deal with change. The Theory of Evolution is primarily a theory of how things that exist came to exist. John 10:10 in Message 123 writes: When you state, "Actually, nothing in science can ever be completely proven," I don't believe very many true scientists will agree with you. John 10:10 in Message 218 writes: Since evolution cannot reasonably explain how the existing universe started from something smaller than a pinhead... But in another post he utters words that hardly seem possible, and certainly represent an issue of credibility:
John 10:10 in Message 144 writes: I have a degree in Engineering Physics and understand the laws of nuclear physics and how atoms behave. But we have to leave the frustrations of these contradictions aside and keep them and our thoughts to ourselves. Perhaps John is a true contradiction, or perhaps he's being less than forthright, but there is no way we can ever know for sure, so best to say nothing. Just focus on the topic. Even help John make his points, if he seems amenable.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024