|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,786 Year: 4,043/9,624 Month: 914/974 Week: 241/286 Day: 2/46 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence to expect given a designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Lol. Since the existence of a computer must already exist in order for me to know to wave my wand and create one ... Really? You know a lot more about magic then most of us. Can you tell us how you came by this knowledge?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes it is true by definition. But why do we know it is true? Because of observation. Therefore I meant exactly what I said. We seem to be in agreement that intended objects by nature require an intelligent source. The problem is when anyone tries to nail down just what constitutes a fair means by which one can accurately detect and asses "intent." This is where there seems to be a gross double standard on the part of atheists and agnostics. As I have already pointed out, no one seems to have any problem using the specificity of the information in a dolphins communication, to detect and determine levels of intelligence. And no on has trouble with an archaeologist using patterns of specific information that he foreknows from completely independent sources to determine if an object he is examining is man made or naturally formed. Actually I can not think of a single case in which "intent" is detected apart from the use of specificity as I have already defined here. However Katy bar the door and all hell brakes loose the moment someone points out that this same specificity is observed in something that implies the involvement of a Supreme Being. But this is nonsense which we have already kicked to pieces. Real scientists do not, and indeed could not, detect design with reference to your vague waffle about specificity. I have told you how they do it. I have also pointed out about a zillion times that archaeologists do not put the remains of living creatures in the same class as clay pots and flint arrowheads, they stick 'em in the "natural" pile. Either they are not detecting design when they look at the stuff they dig up, or they are coming to the exact opposite conclusion to the one you want them to and so are not using any method that you'd endorse.
The moment someone does that, then in a desperate attempt to find a loop hole, the conversation suddenly degrades into quibbling over the definition of words... to the point that you practically have to define the very word "DEFINE." Its all really quite very comical to watch. You are telling us falsehoods about what our arguments are. Which I guess is easier than refuting those arguments, but I can't imagine it gives you the same sense of satisfaction.
I fully understand that patterns can be produced by unintelligent sources, but you seem to be using pattern and "code" as if they were synonymous. I would like to see an example of a "code" that was observed having formed by unintelligent sources. The genetic code has been observed to evolve into new and different codes. I'd ask if you've ever observed a code being brought into existence by supernatural means, only I know the answer.
Think about what you are saying. That's like saying that out of 500 billion dump-trucks full of marbles you find only one marble with a perfect biosphere and intelligent organisms living on it, and saying "Oh well there is nothing really all that unique about it." No it isn't. It's actually like saying: "The "parameters" of any planet will always be exactly right for everything that is part of the planet. What else would you expect?" Would you like to argue with that? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I think though you were trying to trip me up in my words, you inadvertently supported my point. My point again is that we have never observed something come from nothing. And that science is based on observation not speculation. So much for the Christian doctrine of ex nihilo creation. Will you tell the Pope or shall I?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
My apology there Doc. I was just doing something that us under educated lay people call, "communicating within operating constructs of an abstract analogy." I too am educated, but I would hesitate to call what you are doing "communicating".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You are just busting at the seems to talk about bacteria aren't you? Its incredible to me how someone can take a single celled organism which bares almost no resemblance to the incredible diversity of multi-celled organisms found on Earth and use it as their sole biological argument for universal common decent. Don't you ever tell the truth?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I want them to know that we aren't the bumbling fools the world paints us to be. That you don't have to check your brain at the door with the hats when you enter a church. That its not a blind leap into a dark chasm, but rather a faith based on evidence. Then perhaps you should post less often.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So was it that a fat hippo sat on Thumbelina's umbrella, or did an intelligently designed computer crunch out a configuration based on intelligently programmed algorithms? Who designed the antenna?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
PaulK said that Berlinski had no qualifications in biology, and you haven't controverted him as such; though noting that he has worked for a biologist is something to be said for him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So... is science something we base on what we haven't observed, or on what we have? The things we have observed. If we base it on the things we have observed, then we would estimate that over 10% of planets have life, based on the sample we have. Perhaps this would be a little naive, but at least it would be based on observation. Instead, you based your argument on something we haven't observed, i.e. the imagined lifelessness of planets that we haven't actually checked for life. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yeah really. Scientist' havn't studied every fossil either, but you wouldn't ever know it from the things they say about fossils. I picked it up from the things they say about fossils. Perhaps I'm more perceptive than you. For example, here's what Darwin had to say on the subject:
That our palaeontological collections are very imperfect, is admitted by every one. The remark of that admirable palaeontologist, the late Edward Forbes, should not be forgotten, namely, that numbers of our fossil species are known and named from single and often broken specimens, or from a few specimens collected on some one spot. Only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored, and no part with sufficient care, as the important discoveries made every year in Europe prove. What have scientists subsequently said about fossils that led you to think differently? Perhaps you could quote some paleontologist saying something along the lines of : "Since we've found every fossil there is, there's really no point in anyone funding any further field expeditions"? Or perhaps we don't live in Opposite World. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It appears to me that the so-called "cambrian explosion" supports Creationism with the sudden appearence of these animals. The gradual evolution of hard-bodied creatures over a period of millions of years supports a dogma which invariably denies evolution and usually denies the millions of years? Apparently we are in Opposite World.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
So you want creationists to try to falsify a strawman position? By saying only one little rabbitt will falify our false theory? If the TOE is untrue how can something that is already false be falsified? It's setup to cover anything that would dare come againt it. Like the definition of a "scientific theory" It leaves the door open to cover everything under the sun and whenever someone comes along with different intepretation on all the evidence available to everyone you just say we're not following the scientific method. You what? This conveys paranoia but not much else.
Well then what exactly is the scientific method. Do you agree that science follows the scientific method for the TOE? Try my thread on The Scientific Method For Beginners.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
No, it's a strawman to say that a rabbit would falsify the theory, that is what i'm saying. To say that the cambrian is "evolutions" little time period and then to say "find a rabbit in it" is misleading. Again it seems that your desire to say something outreaches your command of the English language. Start by looking up "strawman". A "strawman" is when you misrepresent someone else's argument, as in the bizarre phrase: "To say that the cambrian is "evolutions" little time period ..."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes, a strawman is when someone misrepresents their opponents position. Maybe that was the wrong word to use. Lie would have been better. So the TOE is a lie and made up and to boot, just find a nice little rabitt where we say it can't exist and you have falisified our lie that cannot be falisified because we wont let it be falsified with all of the false information we use to craft the theory to begin with. Like the cambrian explosion for example. How neat. It's not actually our fault you can't find anything that falsifies evolution. It's 'cos of it not actually being false. Go and yell at reality and see if it cares.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024