|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence to expect given a designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: You think that evolutionary theory really DOES say that we should find rabbits in the Cambrian ? If not, how can it be a strawman ?
quote: You think that if something IS false, then it can't be shown to be false? If you don't understand these points, how can you hope to discuss the issues ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Then you haven't bothered to understand the point. Our understanding of evolution has no land vertebrates in the Cambrian, let alone modern mammals like rabbits. Such a find would be astounding and at the least require dramatic revisions to our understanding of evolutionary theory. It would be far better evidence against evolution than what we actually see in the Cambrian, which seems to be mainly due to the limitations of the fossil record ( e.g. very small life forms, and life without hard parts are only rarely fossilised). And do you understand what falsification actually means now ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: And in fact the only strawman was your invention...
quote: I guess that is nastier and more dishonest. I don't see that as being "better".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Let's have a look at this taking into account only what has actually been observed, and leaving out speculation. After all if JBR tells us that we cannot even consider that speculation MIGHT be true, so if he were relying on speculation, he would be using a double standard indeed.
I also wish to make a point about specification, If the assumption of an intelligent source is based on intent then intent must be established. Arguing for intent from an intent-free notion of specification would be necessarily make that notion of specification sufficient to argue for an intelligent source. So is the question of intent relevant or redundant ?
quote: I think that we can only call this an "observation" if there is a "nothing" that has been properly observed and seen to never produce anything. If "nothings" have not been observed, we cannot conclude what they might or might not be capable of (that would be speculation). So do we have such observations ? What does "nothing" mean in the context of this argument ?
quote: Scientific "observation" B' we have never observed the universe failing to exist.But apparently this is not taken as a reason to conclude that the universe has always existed. Which illustrates the problem of using a simple failure to observe something as an argument for it's impossibility. However, we have observed that the universe is expanding for as far back as we can see. If we use well-accepted theory to run further backwards we get to a point where the universe is so small that well-accepted theory can no longer accurately describe it (this is not observation, but is it speculation or are we entitled to rely on well-established theories ?). To go beyond this point surely counts as speculation, since we do not even have well-established theory as a guide. THere is no "Observation C"
quote: Let us note that Subbie's antenna seems to falsify that since it was not designed by an intelligent source. If however, the argument is supposed to refer to manufacture rather than design, we must note that neither the universe, nor the Earth nor living things show any evidence of intentional manufacture - which would be the usual way of identifying the presence of intent for artifacts.
quote: Actual observation indicates a significant degree of redundancy in the DNA code, and that large amounts of DNA appear to lack any function - and almost certainly lack any function that depends on the sequence. The idea of DNA being "highly specified" is questionable to say the least. Speculating that these parts of DNA do have sequence dependent function would be speculating against the evidence. Moreover that objection rules out DNA being highly specified in a simple way that does not include the issue of intent. We have never observed any non-human engineering DNA with intent, nor have we observed any non-human capable of it. In short, the idea of intent with regard to DNA is based on speculation rather than observation. On the other hand we have observed that evolution-like processes can be quite effective at producing functional designs, without having any intent at all. So if all we have is functional designs obviously we should go with the process which is observed to be operating and capable of producing functional designs rather than speculate about unobserved designers.
quote: First it needs to be established that these parameters actually are highly specified. Without doing so this is speculation, not observation. And - in the case of the atmosphere - we must point out that the atmosphere has been radically altered by the presence of life. Which rather indicates that that is not highly specified. Further, since our observations of other planetary systems are still very limited by the available technology, we cannot reasonably say that we have observed even a tiny fraction of those in our galaxy, let alone the many other galaxies which have been observed to exist. Any ideas about what we would find if we observed even 1% of existing planetary systems are speculative.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: OK, then you've failed to establish that life, the universe or the Earth have specificity because intent has not been established. You certainly haven't shown a valid scientific method that applies. In fact you seem to claim in Message 226 that specificity is used to identify intent, which is circular - unless the "intent" really is redundant and what you really mean is "function code or pattern".
quote: I seem to have missed the answers. Can you start by pointing to a post that describes what you mean by "nothing" and what observations we have that entitle us to conclude that it produces nothing ? Indeed your refusal to identify how we even could make such an observation in Message 228 rather suggests that you have no observations to base your claim on whatsoever. Edited by PaulK, : Updated with message references...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: If you mean that intent is directly observed, then you have a problem. I would add that you have yet to establish that your specificity really is a good method of detecting intent, the more so since intent is part of your definition (requiring that we establish intent before concluding that your specificity is present). So I suggest that you correct your definition of specificity to remove the misleading reference to intent so that we can really discuss it's merits.
quote: Obviously you haven't defined it very well since even your latest definition has an obvious problem. And no, you haven't actually shown that anybody uses your specificity at all.
quote: You seem to miss the distinction between SHOWING and mere assertion. Merely claiming something does not make it true.
quote: That would be questionable even if there were no other observations. Even if you restrict the question to the first DNA there is still cause to believe that it was preceded by RNA based life. And relying on a lack of observation is -as has been shown - a very unreliable way of coming to conclusions.
quote: Okay, so your first "scientific observation" was nothing of the sort, just a lack of observation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: But you don't have a device for "detecting design". Instead you use an argument to conclude design, which would certainly qualify as "establishing".
quote: You just can't keep your argument straight. Firstly we are talking about establishing intent, so the "intended for..." part is redundant. And you've already denied that spotting "foreknown" patterns qualifies as detecting "specificity". "Applying to or acting on a particular thing" is also a pretty silly way of detecting intelligence (absorption spectra would be a pretty clear example, that is not taken as an example of intelligence at work). So that leaves you with the assertion that we should conclude that the functional systems we see in biology are the result of design. But why should we conclude that when we have an alternative explanation - evolution - better supported by the evidence?
quote: And yet most of us do not conclude that there is intelligence at work in assembling the nest. Which may be underestimating the bird, but I think we can say that any claim that the nest is primarily the result of intelligent thought rather than instinct is one very much in need of support.
quote: Message 113 does not support your claim that DNA is highly specified at all (do not forget that genes represent only a small proportion of DNA) - and nor do either of the links. Message 271 is a list of ID supporters (who clearly do not represent the scientific consensus) - but with no indication that even they agree with your claim. So no, you have not shown that scientists or biologists in general describe DNA as highly specified. You really ought to learn not to try these silly bluffing tactics on me, because I WILL check your claims, and I WILL point out that they are clearly untrue. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but I should point out that that is Special Relativity, which only deals with inertial frames of reference (i.e. the frames of reference do not accelerate and therefore their relative velocities are constant).
Acceleration complicates matters considerably and is dealt with in General Relativity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I think that it is important to know that General Relativity exists and that acceleration does make a difference. Explaining General Relativity, even in outline, is probably going too far - but without that information you do risk introducing more confusion.
(The Twin Paradox, for instance can only be solved by recognising that acceleration is involved and a naive application of Special Relativity doesn't work).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024