Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 8:57 PM
35 online now:
Tanypteryx (1 member, 34 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,599 Year: 3,636/19,786 Month: 631/1,087 Week: 221/212 Day: 36/27 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56789
10
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design vs. Real Science
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1806
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 137 of 142 (613846)
04-27-2011 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Dawn Bertot
04-27-2011 9:44 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense
The quantitative result of order is consistent, constant and harmonious behavior

What unit is "consistent, constant and harmonious behavior" measured in?


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-27-2011 9:44 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 351 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 138 of 142 (614087)
05-01-2011 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by ringo
04-27-2011 10:11 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense
This discussion is based on your claim that IDists use the same methods as scientists

sorry for the lateness of my response, graduations, travel,etc.

This is not my discussion its Fivers

Scientists use real objects to measure real objects.

I love the way you guys debate here, (or should say dont debate),you ignore responses and points, throw out a few insults and call it good

Pointing out the way that scientists or whoever, measure objects is not the same, as I am sure you know, as demonstrating why that is the only way to measure reality.

you first need to establish in some logical manner, why that is exclusivley true, to begin with, and why I cant measure, study and evaluate the order in nature by witnessing its consistent harmony, in to many objects and organisms to mention.

Here is an example. What physical 'tools' does a pshychologist use in evaluating, the reality of a persons mental problems. Is there a catalouge number for his tools? Or are we not going to consider a pshychologist a scientist

You see Ringo, you cant just assert that, the only way to measure reality is with a 'tool', you have got to demostrate it. the brain is a 'real object', used to evaluate and measure real things. You just dont like it because it is counterfactual to your borrowed arguments and position and because you have no actual response and you know it

Now youve made an attempt in your imagined order of imagined word order. But as I pointed out, you illustration is not valid, because it is not reality itself. the words, 'man bites dog' and 'dog bites man' are simply abstract concepts in the form of words, arranged in an imaginary way.

IOWs, they have no reality themselves, as say, the order in a cell in the body, which is real and measurable with insturments and my brain

if on the other hand we want to say that they have reality, beacuse they are spoken and heard, then we must acknowledge that they only have reality, due to a designer, in this instance, you, because you designed them correct.

Either way you approach it, you are incorrect.

If you can't do that, your claim is falsified.

Of course I have done this and demonstrated it with stinging accuracy. Now, the way for you to falsify it, is to actually respond to my argument, example and illustration and show why:

the brain is not physical, why it is not a tool, why I cannot use it to measure relationships, consistency and harmony in physical objects

You see Ringo in debate you have to acually respond to illustration, examples, arguments. You cant just skip over them and hope no one will notice. Thats why there are give to you to begin with

Unless you can come up with a number for your measurement, you're not doing science.

Unless you can demonstrate that this is the only way to measure anything, and respond to my actual arguments, in response to your query, then it follows you are still only working with a faulty premise

If you can begin to understand what measurement is, you can begin to understand what scientists do.

Like the word 'science', all you have done in this instance is unwarrently restricted the word 'Measurement' to mean only what you want it to mean. fortunately reality and reason will not allow you to do this in any logical fashion.

I believe the ball is in your court

DawnBertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by ringo, posted 04-27-2011 10:11 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by ringo, posted 05-01-2011 5:20 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 141 by frako, posted 05-05-2011 12:59 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 142 by Peter, posted 05-06-2011 5:36 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16237
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 139 of 142 (614088)
05-01-2011 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Dawn Bertot
05-01-2011 4:48 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense
Dawn Bertot writes:

you first need to establish in some logical manner, why that is exclusivley true, to begin with, and why I cant measure, study and evaluate the order in nature by witnessing its consistent harmony, in to many objects and organisms to mention.


You have that backwards. The observations come first and then the logic is applied to those observations.

How do you think we discovered that "consistent harmony" in the first place? For example, how did we discover that planetary orbits are elliptical and that the sun is at one focus of the ellipse?

Answer: We took a lot of observations, measured a lot of positions, accumulated a big pile of real-world numbers measured with real-world instruments - and then we analyzed those numbers, plotted them on a graph, if you will, and discovered that all planets have consistent motion, that that motion is elliptical and that the sun is at one focus.

Even if you could anticipate, using nothing but your brain, that orbits are elliptical and the sun is at one focus, the physical measurements are still required to confirm the conjecture.

The difference between science and ID, in a nutshell, is that IDists never confirm their conjectures, they never link hypothesis to substance.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-01-2011 4:48 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2001 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 140 of 142 (614584)
05-05-2011 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Dawn Bertot
04-22-2011 9:33 AM


Re: When creationists talk sense
Dawn Bertot writes:

Evolution only addresses the 'diversification' and is compatible with an origin of life by a deity or a designer or a natural process.

So basically I disagree with your counter above.

Pointing out that evo only address diversification, is not the same as demonstrating that it can logically be seperated as a rational approach, in argument form

Peter writes:


So can I ask you this:

Does anything in the stated Theory of Evolution make reference to the origin of the first self-replicating cell?

My argument is that logically it does not need to make any reference to the origins. It starts at a situation in which there are a number of diverse species in evidence, and seeks to explain how that can have happened.

It DOES lead to the question of that origin, but DOES NOT seek to answer that question.

The two questions are niether logically nor functionally coupled in such a way that one relies on a particular answer to the other.

representing ID as an philosophical underpinning and suggesting that one need not concern themselves the how of or why of a thing, is not logical or resonable.

Peter writes:

ID is mainly concerned with the origin question ... isn't it?

ID accepts diversification by natural processes (at least within species), and does not seek to explain THAT in any other way than evolution -- does it?

Speciation is (as I understand it) the area that ID targets, along with the first origin.

You need to demonstrate this not simply state a fact concerning what evo is or does

Peter writes:


I don't think I need to state what evolution seeks to explain -- we both appear to agree on that.

Beyond referring to the theory of evolution, and it's scope, I don't see how one can demonstrate any more clearly that the 'origin' question is not involved -- but arises as a separate question.

Content and color of the case is just the start, its in your face, so to speak. While it may have nothing to do w/ how immediately, it will eventually and cannot be seperate in any logical approach. Wouldnt you agree?

Peter writes:


No, I wouldn't agree.

If I am asking about the content of the briefcase, I have no interest in the manufacturing facility within which it was made.

One might wonder how it got there, but the answer to that question has no bearing on the colour or content of the briefcase -- and is therefore irrelevant if your 'question' is 'What's inside?' or 'What colour is this?'

Wonderment is not the issue involved. "Scientist" make a boast of being completley accurate and thorough in their approach to the natural world. To do so, an examination into the why is only rational and reasonable in logical formated approach correct

Peter writes:


I thought Scientists merely stated that a theory is either consistent with evidence or not.

How concsistent is it for these "scientists" to claim accuracy in their SM, then trun right around and claim how the suitcase got there as not important or suggest they are not concerned how it got there, as a part of the scientific processes

Your attempt in point out the differnce in the two is noble, but it does not solve the problem from any logical and scientific approach

No-one has to reject the claims of ID .... ID proponents have to convince the scientific community that they are on to something.

because they confuse the conclusion of ID w/ its approach, they assume ID exponents have "nothing". When in fact the approach and method is exacally the same. The SM in this connection starts and finishes the same way

Peter writes:

If ID does NOT follow the scientific method then it is, by definition, not scientific.

Whether it's approaches are valid or not is another question, but from what I have seen the starting point is an assumption rather than an observation -- therefore the whole concept is (as currently stated) flawed.

They get lost in the details and specifics of an examination of the minutness of the natural world and mistakenly assume that this minutia, is somehow a better process than the general approach of investigation itself.

Further hypothesis, tests and retest, will not result in a opposite conclusion of order and law,nor will it give a better or more accurate answer, than the only two possibilites for the explanation of things

Peter writes:


I think there are more than two possible explanations for anything -- some are more correct than others though -- in thelight of evidence that is.

The reason the ID approach has stood the test of time is because it is naturally and ratioanlly based.

Peter writes:


The reason is has lasted is that it's proponents are zealots.

Investigations start with observations, not conclusions. They then form a testable hypothesis ... then test it.

The conclusions come from the results of the 'testing'.

If you start with a conclusion and work backwards it's amazing what you can apparently 'proove'!!

This is ofcourse what I have been pleading for someone to do. Demonstrate how an examination into the natural world and its law and order is starting with a conclusion

Peter writes:

Evolution (to simplify a lot) starts with a simple observation : There are many different species of animals.

It then proposes that this can come about by accumulation of random changes coupled with environmental pressure (again simplified because the full details are not the point here).

ID (possibly simplified) starts with the assumption that : All complex entities must have been designed.

There is no underpinning observation ... ID starts with a conclusion.

Perhaps the ID observation is that living things are complex, and seeks to answer the question of how did that complexity arise?

demonstrate that further investigation and further investigation and testing of the details of the eye for example and how they work together to a purpose, is starting with a conclusion

Peter writes:

The conclusion is that they have 'purpose' ... but the ID investigation has already assumed intelligent design.

The truth of the matter is that all people start with some preconcieved ideas. You dont think MR Darwin sat on Gallapogus (sorry if that is not how you spell it) and had all the data he needed to confirm all his theories do you?

Peter writes:


We all have context ... that's why science needs peer review. Unfortunately ID appears to ignore the 'peers' who disagree.

Further experiments hundreds of years later have proved no better in a dismisal of the order and law to the conclusion of a designer

Peter writes:

But there is a good body of evidence to suggest that 'design' can be achieved from a simple, natural process.

... it's a bit like fractals. Some very simple 'rules' can lead to some highly complicated patterns.

What you are actually seeing is a hatred for religion and its tenets, disguised under the academic outcries of foul and unscientific

Is that a tactic to try to avoid discussing the issues raised?

if you feel it is you are free to demonstrate what I have avoided, or any conclusions to that affect

Peter they dont want Design taught, not because it cant be accurately demonstrated, but because they are afraid the flood gates would be open for any religion to tout their claims and they percieve it as a step backwards

Peter writes:


In the UK I would guess that ID would be taught in a religous studies class ...

When in fact it is only a logical and rational approach to the nature of things. It cannot be accurately demonstrated as invalid, unscientifc (if we use science in its original form) or irrational

Peter writes:

But it is contradictory:

A) All complex entities must be designed => There must be a designer

A) above leads to the conclusion that the designer MUST be simple (since it itself was not designed). What could be simpler than a set of 'natural laws' ?

I was there in my time in the service, (3 YEARS), in a small town called Brandon, I LOVE ENGLAND

Dawn Bertot

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-22-2011 9:33 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2813
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 141 of 142 (614617)
05-05-2011 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Dawn Bertot
05-01-2011 4:48 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense
Here is an example. What physical 'tools' does a pshychologist use in evaluating, the reality of a persons mental problems. Is there a catalouge number for his tools? Or are we not going to consider a pshychologist a scientist

You see Ringo, you cant just assert that, the only way to measure reality is with a 'tool', you have got to demostrate it. the brain is a 'real object', used to evaluate and measure real things. You just dont like it because it is counterfactual to your borrowed arguments and position and because you have no actual response and you know it

Well i say your brain is not calibrated because i see no order all i see is chaos.
All my brain measures is chaos so whiteout an objective measuring tool for order and chaos we cannot know if the nature of reality is order or chaos.

IOWs, they have no reality themselves, as say, the order in a cell in the body, which is real and measurable with insturments and my brain

Well your instruments are flawed there is no order in a cell only the one you impose.

All you have in a cell is a randomly generated machine trough the process of evolution.

Unless you can demonstrate that this is the only way to measure anything, and respond to my actual arguments, in response to your query, then it follows you are still only working with a faulty premise

Well i guess your way of mesuring things works the only problem is your "instrument" is not calibrated The only other option is your method is not objective but that cant be right can it ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-01-2011 4:48 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Peter
Member (Idle past 2001 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 142 of 142 (614695)
05-06-2011 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Dawn Bertot
05-01-2011 4:48 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense
Personally I don't count Psychologists as scientists

Edited by Peter, : ans -> as .... doh!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-01-2011 4:48 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
56789
10
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019