|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence to expect given a designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Logically it does not matter how compelling you believe the evidence is, it is still only an induction of confirmation evidence, which logically, can only be regarded as "viable". Put what tags on it you want, it is still just the consequent in a modus ponen, which proves nothing, no matter how impressive the mountain of evidence is.
You can show me that a snail has walked a few inches? But if you show a human over a thousand years, there has been no movement at all. If you show a fossil of a frog, that is basically the same as frogs today, you have not shown an inch of movement. It's the size of the claim of macro-evolution against reality. You have to show that if you follow the snail, it will fly, implode, then explode. You are reasoning that trees, somewhere down the line are ancestors to rabbits. It is not just a big claim, it is the biggest claim in history, therefore logically, it requires correspondingly vast evidence. That that evidence is compelling to you and atrocious to others is irrelevant, all that matters is that the powers of evolution, if it has any, have not been shown in the least. Time and time again you use the example of having to walk a mile, and showing one step shows how the mile was walked, but you have yet to show that the snail or shall we say, the person, can even walk. It is a compositional error, otherwise SOME evolution would be observable, in regards to big changes, especially in micro-organisms. But adapting to changes, small superficial differences, such as size, does not show any of that mile walk. There are massive chmbered nautilis and crocs but between then and now, all you have really proven is superficial change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Do you ever plan on presenting any evidence that I have provided no evidence?
You see, any idiot can state the same thing forever, it's pretty easy Jar, but are you trying to prove you are the chief of idiots by purposely continuing your childish posts when I expressly told you not to post worthless posts to me again? I'm sure this proves something in your own mind, but if it continues, then I can fire it back at you.
Are you ever going to produce any posts/evidence showing I have not shown that the consequent in a modus ponen is not confirming evidence? I am afraid we can do this forever, the difference being that I know what evidence is and have explained it, and you have merely stated that I haven't. How very odd.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
It is not ignorance.
Come on subbie, I know you are blinded with dislike for me but even you can see that that aerial inherently just doesn't require design. I can literally cut a piece of metal and attach it to my radio, I have done it, and whether it looks squiggly for show or is just linear, the fact is that it's just a pedantic example, vacuous, doesn't even compare to a sophisticated circuit board. I could throw a rock in a pond and call it, "design", or the rock could land in the pool but the definition would be so wide that it would be totally moot. Sure- think evolution can produce design, but please, this is just silly. Why do you insult my intelligence? I have made these arials - they don't need design, or particular shape, or any thought, they in no way compare to the circuit board or a genome. No way, just no way, no matter how hard you fight it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1275 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
That's right. Stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and keep praying. That way, nothing disquieting will intrude on your little world. Just do me one favor, will you? Please keep it to yourself as the rest of the world moves on without you. M'kay pumpkin?
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
There are no new observed novel designs. There shouldn't be. Evolution is descent with modification. Old designs are modified.
Look at HIV, and all bacteria, look at the speed they reproduce, it is not unreasonable to expect at least one of these organisms to have produce a new novel design that could be observed/counted as a mcro-evolution, or even a partial macro-evolution, given that 100 human years is.............how man bacteria years? Then macro-evolution is not needed to produce the biodiversity we see today since evolution is modification of old designs. Humans are still apes, which are still primates, which are still mammals, which are still metazoans, which are still eukaryotes. Everything from protists on up is no new designs since they are still using the eukaryote design. This is the funny thing about ID arguments. They define "new information" and "macroevolution" in such a way that evolution doesn't need to produce it.
We have no reason to believe in macro-evolution.
There is no reason that evolution needs to produce it, as you have defined it, in order to create the biodiversity we see today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
If blood spatter is information, then everything in existence is information. If everything is information, then the atheist is dilluting the definition to the point of it not being viable. We also have the other problem where the IDer defines new information in such a way that evolution does not need to produce it in order to create the biodiversity we see today. If mutations do not create new information then evolution does not need to produce new information in order for evolution to occur. Also, you have yet to tackle the nested hierarchy problem. This is the biggest hurdle for IDer's, in my view. No designer limits itself to a nested hierarchy, but it is the only pattern that evolution can produce for species that do not participate in horizontal gene transfer. What do we see in the design of metazoans? A nested hierarchy. This is a big reason that design is falsified and why evolution is evidenced. If you want, we can focus on just one gene, cytochrome B. I think that would be most informative. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2497 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
mike the wiz writes: Come on subbie, I know you are blinded with dislike for me but even you can see that that aerial inherently just doesn't require design. There's a brief description of what subbie's talking about on the page linked below, mike. NASA needed a tiny antenna (able to fit in a one-inch space) to send and receive signals from satellites to earth. The software that designed it uses a process deliberately modelled on biological evolution, and it can out perform intelligent engineers. The equivalent of the environment in biological evolution is the performance combined with the necessary constraints (the tiny size). It illustrates that variation and selection can produce excellent practical function, such as that which we see in life forms. It's not just any old coat-hanger attached to your radio. NASA - NASA 'Evolutionary' software automatically designs antenna.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Logically it does not matter how compelling you believe the evidence is, it is still only an induction of confirmation evidence, which logically, can only be regarded as "viable". Put what tags on it you want, it is still just the consequent in a modus ponen, which proves nothing, no matter how impressive the mountain of evidence is. This does not mean anything, but if it did, it would probably be wrong. What you seem to be trying to say (in some jargon of your own with a vague resemblance to English) is that having a vast amount of evidence for something is not a reason to believe it. Yes it is.
You can show me that a snail has walked a few inches? But if you show a human over a thousand years, there has been no movement at all. If you show a fossil of a frog, that is basically the same as frogs today, you have not shown an inch of movement. And if I show you hominids over a longer period, then there has been movement, and if I show you a primitive frog, then there has again been change.
It's the size of the claim of macro-evolution against reality. You have to show that if you follow the snail, it will fly, implode, then explode. Uh, no. I have to show that small changes can add up to big changes. This is obvious.
You are reasoning that trees, somewhere down the line are ancestors to rabbits. It is not just a big claim, it is the biggest claim in history, therefore logically, it requires correspondingly vast evidence. And the evidence is correspondingly vast. The whole of the fossil record, of molecular phylogeny, of biogeography, of comparative morphology, of behavioral ecology ... you could spend a lifetime and not learn more than a fraction of the evidence.
It is a compositional error, otherwise SOME evolution would be observable, in regards to big changes, especially in micro-organisms. And some evolution is directly observable. The amount of evolution that takes millions of years is not directly observable, which is another successful prediction of the theory of evolution.
But adapting to changes, small superficial differences, such as size, does not show any of that mile walk. Which is why I referred you to the actual evidence for macroevolution, which you are ignoring.
There are massive chmbered nautilis and crocs but between then and now, all you have really proven is superficial change. If this has a meaning, it is known only to you and God. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
mike the wiz writes: If blood spatter is information, then everything in existence is information. If everything is information, then the atheist is dilluting the definition to the point of it not being viable. The important distinction isn't whether an object contains information or not (for everything contains information), but the particular details of that information. And for ID the question isn't whether an object contains information, for it most certainly does, but whether the information is specified or not. And for the debate the question is whether intent, i.e., if or not the information was specified by an intelligence, can be ferreted out. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Even mentioning "that the consequent in a modus ponen is not confirming evidence" when speaking about reality or science is simply a nonsense assertion, using big words in the hope that it will sound like you know what you are talking about; but folk here are not that simple Mikey.
Logic is irrelevant to reality or truth Mikey. We are in a science forum. In science, physical evidence trumps logic every day. If you have physical evidence of even a single non-natural cause or object, then your designer might be worth examination, but until you present some evidence, you have nothing. If you have ever presented any such evidence then it is a simply thing for you to provide a link to that post. Until then you have nothing but pseudo-philosophical masturbation.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
mike the wiz writes: Do you ever plan on presenting any evidence that I have provided no evidence? I neglected to mention it in my previous post, so let me mention it by responding to your reply to Jar's request for evidence. This thread isn't asking for evidence of the designer. Rather, it is an opportunity for creationists to describe the evidence we should expect to see if a designer existed. Whether we've actually found that evidence yet doesn't matter. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
This thread isn't asking for evidence of the designer. Rather, it is an opportunity for creationists to describe the evidence we should expect to see if a designer existed. Whether we've actually found that evidence yet doesn't matter. Since my horse is still kicking around . . . Why would we ever expect a design process to produce a nested hierarchy? Automobiles do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Computers do not fall into a nested hierarchy. I am unaware of any set of designs where a designer was required to make designs that fall into a nested hierarchy. Therefore, there is no reason that we would ever expect life to fall into a nested hierarchy. This observation would be inexplicable in a design setting. To be specific, why couldn't a designer produce a species with feathers and three middle ear bones? Or a species with flow through lungs and fur? Why would a designer need to change the amino acid sequence of cytochrome B in mice and yeast by 30% even though mouse cytB functions just fine in yeast? At the end of the day, it is PATTERN of homology (and divergence) that ID can not explain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 603 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Why would a designer need to change the amino acid sequence of cytochrome B in mice and yeast by 30% even though mouse cytB functions just fine in yeast? Could it be because the dna sequence that is responsible for producing cytB in both mice and yeast are partially transcribed to produce miRNA that have other regulatory functions specific to each organism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Could it be because the dna sequence that is responsible for producing cytB in both mice and yeast are partially transcribed to produce miRNA that have other regulatory functions specific to each organism? Actually, I was thinking of cytochrome C:
quote: So why rewrite cytochrome C for yeast when any of these other ones will work fine? Not only that, but why rewrite cytochrome C sequences so that they produce the same nested hierarchy that is formed when comparing morphology? How does that make sense from a design perspective? Why would you rewrite cytochrome C to make it look like evolution occurred?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Taq writes:
That's a recurring theme - why would God make it LOOK as though it was done by evolution, whilst leaving no proper clues about designing it himself - I've never seen anyone even attempt that answer. Why would you rewrite cytochrome C to make it look like evolution occurred? Perhaps he just has a wicked sense of humour.Life, don't talk to me about life.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024