Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design explains many follies
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 241 of 302 (304654)
04-16-2006 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Chiroptera
04-14-2006 9:50 AM


You have written,
"And you have been told that no one believes that this occurred by "chance".
quote: Most who do not believe in ID recognize the infinitely small probability that chance could be the cause of our existence....
Indeed, which is why most who do not believe in ID recognize that our existence is not due to chance."
Since no one here believes that an Intelligent Designer brought our universe into existence and then created all life that exists on earth, and that this is the most reasonable explanation for why we exist, just what do you believe is a better explanation?
This message has been edited by John 10:10, 04-16-2006 06:50 PM

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 235 by Chiroptera, posted 04-14-2006 9:50 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by kalimero, posted 04-16-2006 8:05 PM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 247 by Chiroptera, posted 04-17-2006 12:19 PM John 10:10 has not replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2445 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 242 of 302 (304659)
04-16-2006 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by John 10:10
04-16-2006 6:49 PM


R N A
Hi John,
1.
Since no one here believes that an Intelligent Designer brought our universe into existence and then created all life that exists on earth, and that this is the most reasonable explanation for why we exist,
{Bold mine}
How can you think this is the most reasonable explanation if you go on to ask:
just what do you believe is a better explanation?
You have been told that science has come up with a better, although still hypothetical, explanation for the beginning of life and that this is different from the ToE, it's abiogenesis, an still you assert that ID is the 'most reasonable', obviously without knowing anything about the RNA world. Here is some stuff from Wikipedia I'm sure you would have looked up if you were not busy posting this question.
RNA world - Wikipedia
Take a look at the links below, too. (Even creation links)
2.
Is there any chance you could reply to my Message 240, or shall I take this as a "I have no answer so I'll ignore it" reply?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by John 10:10, posted 04-16-2006 6:49 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by John 10:10, posted 04-17-2006 9:14 AM kalimero has replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 243 of 302 (304715)
04-17-2006 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by kalimero
04-16-2006 8:05 PM


Re: R N A
Hi Kalimero,
I asked the question because most here at this forum believe there is a better explanation for our existence than attributing our existence to an Intelligent Designer.
Leaving aside how matter came into existence in the first place, it seems your better and more reasonable explanation is abiogenesis - the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms from lifeless matter.
Maybe you can show me your odds of abiogenesis occurring?
The odds of there being an Intelligent Designer are at least 50/50. Either there is an Intelligent Designer or there isn't.

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 242 by kalimero, posted 04-16-2006 8:05 PM kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Modulous, posted 04-17-2006 9:28 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 245 by kalimero, posted 04-17-2006 9:58 AM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 246 by Percy, posted 04-17-2006 12:10 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 252 by DominionSeraph, posted 04-18-2006 1:34 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 253 by sidelined, posted 04-18-2006 2:17 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 254 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2006 7:53 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 255 by Parasomnium, posted 04-18-2006 11:15 AM John 10:10 has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 244 of 302 (304717)
04-17-2006 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by John 10:10
04-17-2006 9:14 AM


all possibilities have equal probabilities????
The odds of there being an Intelligent Designer are at least 50/50. Either there is an Intelligent Designer or there isn't.
The lottery here is 1 to play and you win say 8million.
My chances of winning are 50% - I either win or I don't. Therefore, with an investment of just 10 I am likely to win the lottery and become a millionaire.
Oh wait, listing the possibilities and assigning each possibility as having equal probability isn't how it works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by John 10:10, posted 04-17-2006 9:14 AM John 10:10 has not replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2445 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 245 of 302 (304721)
04-17-2006 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by John 10:10
04-17-2006 9:14 AM


Re: R N A
Oh wait, listing the possibilities and assigning each possibility as having equal probability isn't how it works.
Exactly.
Maybe you can show me your odds of abiogenesis occurring?
Just a moment...
4.1.6
In this way his team demonstrated enzyme-free replication of a six-base strand of nucleic acid by using it as the template for assembling and linking together two three-base fragments
{Bold mine}
From the bold above its easy to see that the odds are good. Even random experiments with RNA have given self-replication.
There are alot of factors to consider, but the fact is all you need is a few bases of RNA (if its six then the probability, if all else is equal [and its not] is 2^6 over the entire mix of nucleotides on earth), calculating the rest is very complex chemistry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by John 10:10, posted 04-17-2006 9:14 AM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by John 10:10, posted 04-17-2006 1:36 PM kalimero has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 246 of 302 (304746)
04-17-2006 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by John 10:10
04-17-2006 9:14 AM


Re: R N A
John 10:10 writes:
The odds of there being an Intelligent Designer are at least 50/50. Either there is an Intelligent Designer or there isn't.
This discussion is in somewhat of a roundabout. Hopefully it won't be too much a distraction from the main topic if I asked how you reconcile the above error with this from your Message 144:
I have a degree in Engineering Physics and understand the laws of nuclear physics and how atoms behave.
Physics and engineering both make intensive use of math and probability, and your basic math error seems inconsistent with such a background. Maybe if we understood your background in a little better detail it would help the discussion make progress. Are there any other details you'd be willing to provide?
If it helps, I'll go first. I have a Bachelors of Electrical Engineering from the University of Delaware, a Masters of Computer Engineering from Carnegie-Mellon, and a year of work on a PhD thesis that I was never able to muster much enthusiasm for. I've been working in the electronic design automation industry for about 30 years in both management and individual contributor roles. My most public role was several years spent as chairperson of a standards committee with responsibility for a portion of the timing analysis sub-discipline.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by John 10:10, posted 04-17-2006 9:14 AM John 10:10 has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 247 of 302 (304751)
04-17-2006 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by John 10:10
04-16-2006 6:49 PM


quote:
...just what do you believe is a better explanation?
Natural selection (a very nonrandom process) acting on imperfectly replicating systems that were initially very, very simple.

"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 241 by John 10:10, posted 04-16-2006 6:49 PM John 10:10 has not replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 248 of 302 (304776)
04-17-2006 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by kalimero
04-17-2006 9:58 AM


Re: R N A
The theory of abiogenesis simplified says (1) simple chemicals go to (2) polymers to (3) replicating polymers to (4) hypercycle to (5) protobiont, and finally to (6) bacteria. Laying aside the belief that these simple chemicals did not need to know where they were going and somehow slowly climbed towards organism-hood and beyond to creature-hood, I don’t believe any serious molecular scientist would place the odds much higher than 50/50. The theoretical concepts beyond replicating polymers requires real chemistry and more detailed modeling to confirm, and is so far unknown. But for the sake of argument, let’s say the odds are 50/50 that abiogenesis can explain the cause of our existence. That means the ID should be given equal footing with abiogenesis as an explanation of how life came to be because the odds are certainly no worse than 50/50 that ID is the cause behind our existence, regardless of what the betting odds are in London.
This message has been edited by John 10:10, 04-17-2006 01:39 PM

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 245 by kalimero, posted 04-17-2006 9:58 AM kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by kalimero, posted 04-17-2006 1:54 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 250 by Percy, posted 04-17-2006 2:40 PM John 10:10 has not replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2445 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 249 of 302 (304782)
04-17-2006 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by John 10:10
04-17-2006 1:36 PM


Re: R N A
I don’t believe any serious molecular scientist would place the odds much higher than 50/50.
But for the sake of argument, let’s say the odds are 50/50 that abiogenesis can explain the cause of our existence. That means the ID should be given equal footing with abiogenesis as an explanation of how life came to be because the odds are certainly no worse than 50/50 that ID is the cause behind our existence, regardless of what the betting odds are in London.
Amazing - you have made the same mistake twice. (50/50?)
I think that (3) - replicating polymers - is where natural selection kicks in, or the start of evolution. The ability to, naturaly, 'pick the best one' from all those who have replicated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by John 10:10, posted 04-17-2006 1:36 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 250 of 302 (304792)
04-17-2006 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by John 10:10
04-17-2006 1:36 PM


Re: R N A
John 10:10 writes:
The theory of abiogenesis simplified says (1) simple chemicals go to (2) polymers to (3) replicating polymers to (4) hypercycle to (5) protobiont, and finally to (6) bacteria.
You lifted this with minor edits somewhere off the Internet - I found it at a bunch of sites.
While abiogenesis researchers would agree on a progression of some sort, I doubt there would be much agreement on a specific sequence like that one. For instance, there's a lot of debate about whether replication or metabolism came first. Further, while it's a good example of one way it might have happened, it is far, far too undetailed to calculate any probabilities.
You seem to believe that ID will succeed by discrediting its competitor. But ID is not a competitor to evolution. It isn't even a theory. It's only an idea, and a religious one at that. In order to demonstrate ID's scientific foundation you have to describe the scientific evidence for ID. I hope that you will at some point walk us through this process:
  1. Form a hypothesis: An Intelligent Designer is responsible for life on this planet.
  2. Experiments and/or observations: What experiments were designed and carried out, what observations were attempted?
  3. Results: What was the outcome of the experiments and observations, and how did they support ID?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by John 10:10, posted 04-17-2006 1:36 PM John 10:10 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 251 of 302 (304827)
04-17-2006 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by John 10:10
04-14-2006 9:36 AM


once more, with feeling, eh?
Hello again John,
My reply is in two parts - one about old issues and one about new ones - followed by some closing comments.


PART 1: old issues.
Most who do not believe in ID recognize the infinitely small probability that chance could be the cause of our existence, and ask for proof that ID is the cause.
In case you missed it before, this "probability" argument has been invalidated because it has been shown to (typically) rely on false mathematics and false assumptions.
In order to use this argument again you need to show that the mathematics and assumptions you are referring to are valid in this instance. You must actually present the assumptions and mathematics to support your position, and then you have to show how the assumptions and mathematics are valid, rather than just repeating this assertion as if you didn't even notice the errors you've been shown.
You have not done that.
The place to do that is {the old improbable probability problem } thread (click)
What am I supposed to conclude when you don't substantiate your claim or support it in any way eh?
That you can't or that you won't?
What am I supposed to conclude when you repeat such an assertion that has been shown to be full of errors without any of those errors being refuted?
That you don't appreciate the logical fallacy of your position or that you intentionally disregard the logical fallacy of your position?
What are the options eh?


PART 2: new issues.
There are some that seem to believe that we must discuss the concept of intelligent design in the universe without recognizing that intelligent design must by definition be connected to an Intelligent Designer.
Talk to the ID proponents, not the critics.
I have given you examples why I believe the simplest cell organisms or atoms could not have assembled themselves into compounds, DNA and living creatures by chance.
No, you have just repeated assertions. Assertions are not examples, for you to give examples you would have to detail exactly how "organisms or atoms could not have assembled themselves into compounds, DNA and living creatures by chance" and not just make a statement to that effect. Making such a statement, as previously pointed out, does not distinguish this "explanation" from one where leprechauns did it all. Repeating an assertion does not make it any more valid either.
A few believe that evolution without ID is an indisputable fact proven by evidence.
As pointed out science doesn't "prove" any theory, the best that you get is substantiating evidence that doesn't contradict the theory. So far evolution has substantiating evidence. Where some theories ran into contracting evidence, those theories were invalidated (Lamarckism, etc) and replaced by new theories. This is how science operates.
On this point I strongly disagree.
Bully for you. Unfortunately this has no effect on the validity of your argument. Opinion is like that:
Everyone is entitled to their own set of opinions, but not to their own set of facts.
Which is why we keep asking you for those facts to substantiate your assertions of {your opinions}.
And why we keep saying that as long as you don't provide any substantiation all you have is {your opinion}.
And why we keep saying that when the evidence shows otherwise than {your opinion} that you need to show some means for {your opinion} to be compatible with the facts.
There is in no way, shape or form that evolution without ID is the cause of our existence ...
According to {your opinion}. Please substantiate that with those pesky facts eh? Demonstrate that "evolution without ID" could not be the answer. After all you are entitled to your own set of opinions, but not to your own set of facts, right?
... and has been proved.
{sigh} ... repeat: As pointed out science doesn't "prove" any theory, the best that you get is substantiating evidence that doesn't contradict the theory. So far evolution has substantiating evidence. Where some theories ran into contracting evidence, those theories were invalidated (Lamarckism, etc) and replaced by new theories. This is how science operates.
If those who believe in evolution without ID would simply say this, ...
Science is agnostic. Science is about explaining the way the natural world works by the "rules" of the natural world, which we discover in the process of trying to figure out how the natural world works.
Whether the "rules" of the natural world are supernaturally ordained or just happened to be what they are is immaterial to the scientific inquiry into understanding how they work.
... and then give room to ID as an alternate belief, ...
You, on the other hand are insisting that some specific IDer is involved and must be included, but provide no evidence, test or substantiation for {your opinion} here, and somehow you feel that {your opinion}, your personal belief, needs to have some scientific value just because you like it and repeat it? Where is the science in that?
And ID is an alternate belief to what? Creationism? Since when does any science rely on belief?
... then we could stop asking each other for proof of our beliefs because there are none for either of us.
{sigh again} ... repeat (once again, with feeling): As pointed out science doesn't "prove" any theory, the best that you get is substantiating evidence that doesn't contradict the theory. So far evolution has substantiating evidence. Where some theories ran into contracting evidence, those theories were invalidated (Lamarckism, etc) and replaced by new theories. This is how science operates.
Of course, there are those in the non-ID camp who strongly disagree, offering so-called fact after fact after fact, which are nothing more than opinions and suppositions how the evolutionary process somehow evolved or is evolving over time.
All any scientific theory needs to show is that it is not invalidated by contradictory evidence. All any opposing theory needs to do is show that the first theory is invalidated by contradictory evidence while the (new) opposing theory is not.
So you can whine about the abundance of evidence in support of evolution all you want to, but as long as you cannot provide any -- repeat ANY -- evidence in support of your assertions (that differentiate between evolution et al and ID {by your definition == god}), you don't have a leg to stand on.
And so far you don't have a leg to stand on.


Concluding remarks:
First off your portrayal of opposition to your belief as "evolution without ID" is a strawman. There are many people of faith that have no problem with evolution or any scientific theory substantiated by evidence and testing.
As a Deist, it is a given part of the package that Intentional Design is in the universal picture, but there is absolutely no contradiction with abiogenesis and evolution (etc) being part of the process, the "rules" of development, for how it is achieved (nor even that the process is anywhere near finished). I also know that this is a philosophical position not supported by anything more than personal belief.
The issue comes down to what you deny as evidence to support your belief, rather than following where the evidence leads. The more evidence a belief system needs to deny the less validity that system has.
When you have to deny whole fields of scientific inquiry to support your personal beliefs - especially when other belief systems don't need to deny those fields - then little "anti-belief-validity" bells (ABVB's) should start going off.
This is where the concept of an "Intelligent Designer" can differentiate itself from the various flavors of Creationism, for the concept of ID taken to it's logical conclusion does not require denial of any science or scientific evidence.
So you are just another creationist that thinks "ID" is a trendy new term for god, because you haven't stepped outside the creationist fold.
Enjoy.


I am repeating this because (a) you didn't respond while (b) continuing to post the same mistakes.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by John 10:10, posted 04-14-2006 9:36 AM John 10:10 has not replied

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 252 of 302 (304874)
04-18-2006 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by John 10:10
04-17-2006 9:14 AM


John 10:10 writes:
The odds of there being an Intelligent Designer are at least 50/50. Either there is an Intelligent Designer or there isn't.
Either I'm Odin or I'm not.
Either I'm Zeus or I'm not.
Either I'm Re or I'm not.
Either I'm Jupiter or I'm not.
Either I'm Allah or I'm not.
Either I'm God or I'm not.
So, that gives me a 98.46% chance of being a head god.
Want more fun?
There's an 88.9% chance that you're a Power Puff Girl.
So, should I call you Blossom, Bubbles, or Buttercup?
This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 04-18-2006 01:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by John 10:10, posted 04-17-2006 9:14 AM John 10:10 has not replied

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


Message 253 of 302 (304879)
04-18-2006 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by John 10:10
04-17-2006 9:14 AM


Re: R N A
John 10:10
The odds of there being an Intelligent Designer are at least 50/50. Either there is an Intelligent Designer or there isn't.
Or perhaps there is a designer and the designer is of any number of levels of intelligence.Since the only criteria necessary is that the designer be a minimum level of intelligence and no less the number of possible designers is staggeringly large and approaches infinite if you allow up to an unlimited intelligence. Therefore, the odds significantly increase as a result of this and cannot be considered as 50/50.
This message has been edited by sidelined, Tue, 2006-04-18 12:17 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by John 10:10, posted 04-17-2006 9:14 AM John 10:10 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 254 of 302 (304914)
04-18-2006 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by John 10:10
04-17-2006 9:14 AM


Probabilities ... wrong again?
The odds of there being an Intelligent Designer are at least 50/50. Either there is an Intelligent Designer or there isn't.
This is known as a false dichotomy. There could be an completely unintelligent designer. There could be any number of partly intelligent designers.
It is also an example of not having done any evalutation to weight the possibilities before making your "probability" guess-timate (I won't call it a calculation because it isn't).
For instance, either the law of gravity is true or it isn't, therefor you have a 50/50 chance of falling off the earth, right?
The fact that one could be a 99 88/100% certainty compared to the other changes the probability substantially.
As I've said before, if you don't know the system you are modelling you cannot calculate the probabilities involved.
So tell me John, how does a {bad\false\worthless} argument explain any follies?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by John 10:10, posted 04-17-2006 9:14 AM John 10:10 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by simple, posted 05-15-2006 1:13 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 255 of 302 (304962)
04-18-2006 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by John 10:10
04-17-2006 9:14 AM


Fifty-fifty? You must be joking.
The odds of there being an Intelligent Designer are at least 50/50. Either there is an Intelligent Designer or there isn't.
Let me get this straight: if what you say is true, then it must also be the case that you either "have a degree in Engineering Physics and understand the laws of nuclear physics and how atoms behave", or you don't. There's a 50/50 percent chance.
Well, you could have fooled me. Judging from your recent posts, I'd have thought there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell of you having understood basic probability theory, which I reckon would be one of the minimum requirements for a degree such as you claim to have.
This may sound harsh, but with that one dismal remark you have completely disqualified yourself as a credible source of opposition to the theory of evolution. Looking at your signature, I think you would be better off in the religious forums, and you'd do well to leave the science ones alone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by John 10:10, posted 04-17-2006 9:14 AM 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