Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
114 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Phat (2 members, 112 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,087 Year: 6,199/6,534 Month: 392/650 Week: 162/278 Day: 2/28 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there a legitimate argument for design?
taiji2
Member (Idle past 2777 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 406 of 638 (736777)
09-13-2014 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 401 by RAZD
09-12-2014 7:09 PM


Re: the eyes have it
RAZD writes:

Hi again taiji2
I'll reply to a couple posts to cut down on the load of replies you are receiving.

taiji2 writes:

The question already asked is what does this rather abstruse line of questioning have to do with Intelligent Design. The answer is: What is design if not an idea. If, therefore, the scientific community has not addressed, studied, and developed supportable theory about ideas, the scope of study required to form any conclusions in the ID debate is flawed.

RAZD writes:

Curiously, I feel that you have this a bit out of place - I do not consider ID to be a scientific pursuit but a philosophical one, one that employs science in order to understand the design.

See Is ID properly pursued?

I agree ID is a philosophical issue. There are many flavors of ID. I will also look at the Is ID Properly Pursued thread. thanks

I also think ID is a science issue if it can be resolved with science. I think it could be, but I'm doubtful there will ever be direct ID science. I think if it is resolve with science it will be because of DNA research and the questions that will demand answer.

Just my opinion. I might be wrong.

taiji2 writes:

... My challenge to you is to show me anything in nature that doesn't reek of sophisticated design. ...

RAZD writes:

The human eye. You can show me why you think it "reeks of sophisticated design" and I can show you why it isn't -- the key being an appreciation of what "sophisticated design" actually entails. Note that I am a designer by profession.

See Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy... especially Message 4

I am sensitive about talking design to a designer without being perceived as talking out of school. I will try to be careful.

As to the human eye, I probably don't know all the design flaws you do, I haven't really done much reading on it. My position is that something can be sophisticated without being ideal.... even being way less than ideal.

In my original post, i probably should not have used the word sophisticated. Seeing sophistication in all of nature is true for me, but use of the word opens up the need to defend it to other people who have different standards of sophistication.

taiji2 writes:

Message 380: I don't mind being perfectly clear where I am coming from. I am not a Christian, nor do I believe in any of the Abrahimic dogma. I was raised a Baptist, but discarded that notion early in life. I have dabbled with the eastern religions and have settled on the Taoist cosmology as the one which most closely fits my acceptable worldview: in a nutshell... an Original Self Awareness (with ideas if you will) creating from Wu Chi (nothingness) the Tai Chi (duality) and from the Tai Chi all things. Nothing is said about the mechanisms for doing thus.

RAZD writes:

Have you considered Deism? See my sig ...

NO, but if you recommend it, I will look. Thanks
ps, don't understand See my sig... is this directions somewhere?

taiji2 writes:

Core Taoism really doesn't have a dogma (temple Taoism does, but that is not what I read). Their cosmological view is simple and very non-restrictive. Evolution fits nicely within it, if you can get used to the idea that there is a primordial intelligence and that it had some agency in bringing something forth out of nothing.

RAZD writes:

And I agree. Of course it also includes the concept that all is illusion ... which doesn't get you far in scientific investigations ...

I don't recall Taoist readings that teach all is illusion. If you say its there, I believe you. I may even have read it and forgot. I agree illusion would be a tough nut to crack with you guys

taiji2 writes:

Message 382: And I would argue you are right and so am I. My model sees evolution within ID.


RAZD writes:

No conflicts there. ...

thanks RAZD. I will check out the other thread if I manage to survive this one!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2014 7:09 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2014 11:14 AM taiji2 has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 407 of 638 (736778)
09-13-2014 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 367 by taiji2
09-12-2014 5:51 AM


Re: Welcome
If, therefore, the scientific community has not addressed, studied, and developed supportable theory about ideas, the scope of study required to form any conclusions in the ID debate is flawed.

I want to know what characteristic ideas might have that could make it impossible to judge ID. Can you make up a hypothetical quality that ideas might have that might interfere with our assessment of ID?

Because if you cannot come up with anything, then it seems likely that you it is your objection that is not real.

What we do know about ideas is that they can be conveyed to others, that they can be tested against reality, and that they do not morph into something else when we are not looking. We also know that some subset of those ideas can be expressed in formal language that allow others to reach the same understanding of the ideas that the originator has. Those quantities are all that we need to conduct scientific inquiries.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by taiji2, posted 09-12-2014 5:51 AM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 418 by taiji2, posted 09-13-2014 4:12 PM NoNukes has replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 2777 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 408 of 638 (736781)
09-13-2014 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 400 by Dr Adequate
09-12-2014 6:22 PM


Re: Answer Pt. 1: Ideas
taiji2 writes:

I stand corrected. Does that make psychology any more relevant in the discussion of evolution? If there is a relevancy there, then of course psychology can contribute.

Dr. Absolute writes:

I only pointed out that psychology would qualify as a science of ideas. The relevance you must decide for yourself.

I don't see it relevant. Thanks

taiji2 writes:

I also said such a science might be necessary to take the ID question from endless debate into final, scientifically derived conclusion. Everything I said was within the context of ID which is what we are talking about on this thread, not love.

Dr. Absolute writes:

The thing about love is an analogy.

Dr. Absolute, I recognized that love was an analogy. I didn't think the analogy was a great one and I truly don't mean that in a mean way. I guess using your analogy, if it was important enough to someone powerful enough, a science of love might be developed to satisfy one person's curiosity. I get how that might apply to my curiosity.

I am not insane enough to believe science will actually ever spin off a branch just to prove/disprove the ID debate. My comment was that if you wanted to resolve the debate with science, then such science might be necessary.

Reality is the "if" will never justify the "then'. I realize that.
Hope this is more clear.

Dr. Absolute writes:

If ID needs some science of ideas, and if we don't have such a science, that would be a problem with ID, not with evolution. Just as it's not a flaw in the theory of gravity that someone can claim that love makes the world go round and yet not have an objective scientific theory of love. That would be his problem, it wouldn't be a problem for physicists.

asked and answered

taiji2 writes:

Now if the argument for a science to determine the truths of ideas is not pertinent to this discussion then what is?

Dr. Absolute writes:

As I pointed out, science does almost nothing but determine the truth of ideas, that's what it's for.

I am a poor communicator. I tried to distinguish ideas used in the context of ID debate and ideas in daily use. Sorry, don't know what else to do. We just won't have a meeting of the minds on this one.

taiji writes:

I am pretty sure this has been asked and answered, and I have conceded no massive holes.

Dr. Absolute writes:

It seems to me that that's implicit in what you're saying, though. ID, you say, conceives of "the notion of an original idea". We don't have an "objective science" of ideas, you say. This makes ID hard to study, you say. In your words "such a science might be necessary to take the ID question from endless debate into final, scientifically derived conclusion". This is the basis of your argument. Well, if you are right then you have identified a flaw in ID, something that ID is lacking that might elevate it from vague speculation to the status of a scientific hypothesis or a theory

I tried to make the case for a proposition. I tried to state what would be needed to consider the proposition. I have no illusions it is something that should ever be done. Resolving an argument just isn't worth it.

It is all purely an intellectual exercise. An exercise in which I presumed to dabble in things like propositions for which i am certainly not trained. I don't take myself too seriously and I don't expect you to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2014 6:22 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 437 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-14-2014 5:59 AM taiji2 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 720 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 409 of 638 (736789)
09-13-2014 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 403 by Coyote
09-12-2014 9:54 PM


Re: Some additional data
Niiice


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by Coyote, posted 09-12-2014 9:54 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 720 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 410 of 638 (736796)
09-13-2014 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 406 by taiji2
09-13-2014 1:21 AM


Re: the eyes have it
I agree ID is a philosophical issue. There are many flavors of ID. I will also look at the Is ID Properly Pursued thread. thanks

I also think ID is a science issue if it can be resolved with science. I think it could be, but I'm doubtful there will ever be direct ID science. I think if it is resolve with science it will be because of DNA research and the questions that will demand answer.

Again, I believe that ID uses science to understand how it all works, while ID Properly Pursued is more concerned with why it works out that way. And I would say that any concept that is contradicted by objective empirical evidence is at odds with reality.

Science makes the a priori assumption that objective evidence reflects reality, and thus that we can approximate reality by testing concepts against the objective evidence, and eliminating invalid concepts to improve the accuracy of the approximations (tentative theories). The converse assumption is that all is illusion and you don't know what is 'real' or that anything can be regarded as real.

I don't recall Taoist readings that teach all is illusion. If you say its there, I believe you. I may even have read it and forgot. I agree illusion would be a tough nut to crack with you guys

More Buddhist than Taoist per se.

Message 404: My particular belief system is that the universe(s) and all wihin are parts of a single entity which for lack of a better word is called the Tao.

Perhaps pantheism would be a better fit than deism.

NO, but if you recommend it, I will look. Thanks
ps, don't understand See my sig... is this directions somewhere?

A number of founding fathers were Deists. The "sig" is my signature block at the bottom of my post (you can make your own by editing your CP - see menu bar at top of page).

I am sensitive about talking design to a designer without being perceived as talking out of school. I will try to be careful.

As to the human eye, I probably don't know all the design flaws you do, I haven't really done much reading on it. My position is that something can be sophisticated without being ideal.... even being way less than ideal.

In my original post, i probably should not have used the word sophisticated. Seeing sophistication in all of nature is true for me, but use of the word opens up the need to defend it to other people who have different standards of sophistication.

As a designer we frequently borrow elements from other designs and combine them into new designs. This would violate the nested hierarchy that Taq mentioned in Message 375, and this would show up in genetic evidence.

For example:

  1. the octopus eye has a retina that faces the light sources with the nerves behind the retina traveling directly to the brain, and the eye is focused by changing the distance between the retina and the fixed lens,
  2. the human eye has a retina that faces away from the light source, the photons must travel through the retina to reach the receptors, the nerves are bundled inside the eye to then pass through a hole in the retina (the blind spot), and the eye is focused by changing the shape of the lens to make the focal length match the fixed distance to the retina,
  3. frogs have a transparent\translucent nictitating membrane that can be drawn across the eye to keep it moist and provide additional protection for the eye,
  4. birds have up to 8 types of cones, so they see 8 primary colors, including some ultraviolet,
  5. combining these features into a designed eye would take the forward facing retina to improve perception at lower light levels, a nictitating membrane to provide protection from high light levels, 8 cones for more color distinction and range, both focusing mechanisms to provide zoom lens vision, making glasses unnecessary,
  6. all these features can be found in human designed camera lenses.

No organism has yet been found to have a single borrowed feature. This argues against organisms being designed objects themselves, rather that inhabitants of a universe designed for the development of life via designed 'rules' of abiogenesis and evolution, resulting in the nested hierarchy that is observed across the biological spectrum of life as we know it.

I think of god/s more as artists than engineers ...

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : end


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by taiji2, posted 09-13-2014 1:21 AM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by taiji2, posted 09-13-2014 12:51 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 416 by taiji2, posted 09-13-2014 2:58 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 417 by taiji2, posted 09-13-2014 3:58 PM RAZD has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19745
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 411 of 638 (736802)
09-13-2014 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by taiji2
09-12-2014 6:16 PM


Re: Welcome
taiji2 writes:

The joke is simply the question "Why did God design woman with the sewer so close to the playground".


So you can pick them up like a six-pack.

Jokes don't have to make sense; they just have to be funny. That's why ID is more of a joke than a sensible argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by taiji2, posted 09-12-2014 6:16 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 413 by taiji2, posted 09-13-2014 1:04 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 2777 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 412 of 638 (736804)
09-13-2014 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 410 by RAZD
09-13-2014 11:14 AM


Re: the eyes have it
taiji2 writes:

NO, but if you recommend it, I will look. Thanks
ps, don't understand See my sig... is this directions somewhere?

RAZD writes:

A number of founding fathers were Deists. The "sig" is my signature block at the bottom of my post (you can make your own by editing your CP - see menu bar at top of page).

RAZD, I will respond to your note in pieces. What you say takes my mind to so many places that trying to respond in a single note would be rather lengthy.

Found the signature block..... the proverbial snake that could have bit me

I am aware some of the founding fathers were Deists. Way back when I read it I recall saying to myself, yep that's what I am too. I even have a vague recollection one of the founding fathers wrote on it... Jefferson maybe?

I have not pursued finding a corpus of writing that defines what a deist is and fleshes out the entirety of the thinking. Do you have a recommendation on where to start?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2014 11:14 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2014 1:05 PM taiji2 has replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 2777 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 413 of 638 (736806)
09-13-2014 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 411 by ringo
09-13-2014 12:28 PM


Re: Welcome
taiji2 writes:


The joke is simply the question "Why did God design woman with the sewer so close to the playground".

ringo writes:

So you can pick them up like a six-pack.
Jokes don't have to make sense; they just have to be funny. That's why ID is more of a joke than a sensible argument.

Actually, after mentioning it, I remember that the joke went more on the lines of asking how we know God was not an architect. Answer - He put the sewer beside the playground.

I like the six-pack idea too. Funny for us folks with twisted minds.

And no, jokes don't have to make sense....... well maybe ... hmmmm

And jokes provoke an emotional response. Sometimes intended, sometimes not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by ringo, posted 09-13-2014 12:28 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 720 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 414 of 638 (736807)
09-13-2014 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 412 by taiji2
09-13-2014 12:51 PM


Re: the eyes have it
I am aware some of the founding fathers were Deists. Way back when I read it I recall saying to myself, yep that's what I am too. I even have a vague recollection one of the founding fathers wrote on it... Jefferson maybe?

Jefferson is considered a Deist by many, but the one you are thinking of is the "other" Thomas ... Paine.

I have not pursued finding a corpus of writing that defines what a deist is and fleshes out the entirety of the thinking. Do you have a recommendation on where to start?

There isn't one asfaik, and it kind of goes against to core concepts of no dogma and no revealed 'truth' and that understanding comes from understanding nature.

RAZD, I will respond to your note in pieces. What you say takes my mind to so many places that trying to respond in a single note would be rather lengthy.

Take your time and don't worry about specifics. One of the mistakes of newbies here is thinking they have to hurry up and answer everyone asap ... that'll kill ya. I often like to read a post and then think about it before compiling a reply (in a text document that I can save and complete in stages).

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by taiji2, posted 09-13-2014 12:51 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 415 by taiji2, posted 09-13-2014 1:18 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 2777 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 415 of 638 (736808)
09-13-2014 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 414 by RAZD
09-13-2014 1:05 PM


Re: the eyes have it
taiji2 writes:

RAZD, I will respond to your note in pieces. What you say takes my mind to so many places that trying to respond in a single note would be rather lengthy.

RAZD writes:

Take your time and don't worry about specifics. One of the mistakes of newbies here is thinking they have to hurry up and answer everyone asap ... that'll kill ya. I often like to read a post and then think about it before compiling a reply (in a text document that I can save and complete in stages).

Sage advice RAZD.... thanks. The last few days have taken their toll... but pretty much in a good way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2014 1:05 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 2777 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 416 of 638 (736812)
09-13-2014 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 410 by RAZD
09-13-2014 11:14 AM


Re: the eyes have it
taiji2 writes:

I agree ID is a philosophical issue. There are many flavors of ID. I will also look at the Is ID Properly Pursued thread. thanks
I also think ID is a science issue if it can be resolved with science. I think it could be, but I'm doubtful there will ever be direct ID science. I think if it is resolve with science it will be because of DNA research and the questions that will demand answer.

RAZD writes:

Again, I believe that ID uses science to understand how it all works,

I am not clear what you mean here. Are you saying ID uses science to understand how ID works?

perhaps, perhaps not. I will get over to that thread eventually. Gets into whether the why is relegated to intellectual musings or whether the why has something to do with the how.

RAZD writes:

And I would say that any concept that is contradicted by objective empirical evidence is at odds with reality.

This is where I have trouble with the smugness of the science community.

Science limits science to that which they can observe, measure, test, etc. ( I will say DoScience hereinafter). They then make the A Priori statement that anything that can be contradicted within that framework is at odds with reality.

I don't know how to post a visual, but don't think I need it.

Draw a large circle. The large circle is the population for:.....don't know the best way to describe it .........lets just call it the the no-bullshit, not illusion or imagination, REAL family of all that actually IS.

Within the circle of that large family, I will call it TotalReality for convenience in this conversation, draw a smaller circle.

Within this smaller circle, place all the things that man CAN observe, measure, test and validate, DoScience on, .

Within that smaller circle, draw another smaller circle. In this circle place all the things science HAS observed, measured, tested and validated, DoneScience on.

I don't believe that scientist would find objectionable the idea that one can move from the smallest circle to the next larger circle. That is everyday science... going from what has been done to what can be done within sciences' self-imposed constraints.

I do see scientists objecting to the idea of DoScience on things that are admittedly real and possibly CanDoScience. I saw that right here on this thread when I mentioned ideas.... something admittedly real.

Not being a scientist, I cannot make the judgement whether science CAN be done on ideas. I have no answers on how you might observe, measure, test, replicate, etc. ideas.

Ideas may be CanDoScience or they may be CannotDoScience. I hope, if attempted, it turns out they are CannotDoScience. That would prove there is TotalReality beyond the box of CanDoScience. Given that final and absolute admission, scientists should be required to cease claiming that what they can't prove using their rules contradicts reality.

RAZD writes:

Science makes the a priori assumption that objective evidence reflects reality,

My point exactly. See above. Look up the definition of A Priori and tell me that is scientific.

RAZD writes:

and thus that we can approximate reality by testing concepts against the objective evidence,


asked and answered I think

RAZD writes:

and eliminating invalid concepts to improve the accuracy of the approximations (tentative theories).


nothing has been eliminated except within the self-imposed restrictions of science. I propose there is reality that cannot be measured tested and replicated in the laboratory.

The scientific claim is valid only if you accept reductionist materialism as the only candidate for REAL

RAZD writes:

The converse assumption is that all is illusion and you don't know what is 'real' or that anything can be regarded as real.

I don't support illusions unless I want to read fiction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2014 11:14 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by Percy, posted 09-13-2014 4:13 PM taiji2 has replied
 Message 428 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2014 6:41 PM taiji2 has replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 2777 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 417 of 638 (736816)
09-13-2014 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 410 by RAZD
09-13-2014 11:14 AM


Re: the eyes have it
RAZD writes:

As a designer we frequently borrow elements from other designs and combine them into new designs. This would violate the nested hierarchy that Taq mentioned in Message 375, and this would show up in genetic evidence.

For example:

the octopus eye has a retina that faces the light sources with the nerves behind the retina traveling directly to the brain, and the eye is focused by changing the distance between the retina and the fixed lens,
the human eye has a retina that faces away from the light source, the photons must travel through the retina to reach the receptors, the nerves are bundled inside the eye to then pass through a hole in the retina (the blind spot), and the eye is focused by changing the shape of the lens to make the focal length match the fixed distance to the retina,
frogs have a transparent\translucent nictitating membrane that can be drawn across the eye to keep it moist and provide additional protection for the eye,
birds have up to 8 types of cones, so they see 8 primary colors, including some ultraviolet,
combining these features into a designed eye would take the forward facing retina to improve perception at lower light levels, a nictitating membrane to provide protection from high light levels, 8 cones for more color distinction and range, both focusing mechanisms to provide zoom lens vision, making glasses unnecessary,
all these features can be found in human designed camera lenses.
No organism has yet been found to have a single borrowed feature. This argues against organisms being designed objects themselves, rather that inhabitants of a universe designed for the development of life via designed 'rules' of abiogenesis and evolution, resulting in the nested hierarchy that is observed across the biological spectrum of life as we know it.

I think of god/s more as artists than engineers ...

RAZD,
Sorry your prior post got jammed up. That is what happened when I put quotes around it.

I don't want to argue good design v bad design nor do I want to argue whether bad design negates intelligent design.

I do want to address the notion of "something borrowed" as a precept to design.

It may well be that design in the sense of "man-made design" can be argued this way, I just don't want to go there.

I am arguing front-end design. I don't want to argue where that design came from other than to make the assumption that design is an idea derived from intelligence.

Since the idea (design) involved in my notion is primal, it cannot by definition have anything to borrow from. All arguments requiring borrowing are therefore moot.

If design is not, therefore, a good word to use, please give me a better one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2014 11:14 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 422 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2014 4:29 PM taiji2 has replied
 Message 425 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2014 4:54 PM taiji2 has replied
 Message 477 by Taq, posted 09-15-2014 12:52 PM taiji2 has replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 2777 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 418 of 638 (736820)
09-13-2014 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by NoNukes
09-13-2014 1:33 AM


Re: Welcome
taiji2 writes:

If, therefore, the scientific community has not addressed, studied, and developed supportable theory about ideas, the scope of study required to form any conclusions in the ID debate is flawed.

NoNukes writes:

want to know what characteristic ideas might have that could make it impossible to judge ID. Can you make up a hypothetical quality that ideas might have that might interfere with our assessment of ID?

Because if you cannot come up with anything, then it seems likely that you it is your objection that is not real.

What we do know about ideas is that they can be conveyed to others, that they can be tested against reality, and that they do not morph into something else when we are not looking. We also know that some subset of those ideas can be expressed in formal language that allow others to reach the same understanding of the ideas that the originator has. Those quantities are all that we need to conduct scientific inquiries.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

Please see my comments in Message 416 as to the relevance of ideas. If that does not answer your questions let me know and I will come back to this post.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by NoNukes, posted 09-13-2014 1:33 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by NoNukes, posted 09-13-2014 9:02 PM taiji2 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20959
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 419 of 638 (736821)
09-13-2014 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by taiji2
09-13-2014 2:58 PM


Re: the eyes have it
taiji2 writes:

nothing has been eliminated except within the self-imposed restrictions of science. I propose there is reality that cannot be measured tested and replicated in the laboratory.

Of course there is reality that cannot be studied in the laboratory. Many scientific fields study reality outside the laboratory. Geology and cosmology are examples.

Wouldn't it be impossible to verify the contention that there are parts of reality that are undetectable?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by taiji2, posted 09-13-2014 2:58 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by taiji2, posted 09-13-2014 4:28 PM Percy has replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 2777 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 420 of 638 (736823)
09-13-2014 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 398 by Tanypteryx
09-12-2014 6:13 PM


Re: Welcome
taiji2 writes:

But you need to make it good. Something exhibiting total chaos with nothing that could be mistaken for design down to the subatomic level would be a good one to start with.

Tanypteryx writes:

Good one. So basically you are saying that everything with any order to it is designed? And anything that occurred naturally without design will exhibit total chaos? Way to stack the deck.

I'm not a particle physicist, but I thought everything at the subatomic level was chaotic.

I believe I answer this in Message 404. If not, let me know and I will come back to your objections.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-12-2014 6:13 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022