Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 26/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?
ringo
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 6 of 507 (898729)
09-28-2022 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by evolujtion_noob
09-27-2022 7:55 AM


evolution_noob writes:
Why couldn't the ID proponent just claim that the designer guided the experiment psychically?
If some super-entity can violate the laws of physics willy-nilly, then we can't know anything. If it can change the length of a day, we can't predict when tomorrow will come. If it can suspend the law of gravity, there's no sense in us building bridges.
evolution_noob writes:
How can we rule out the activity of a designer when there are no limits on how this designer operates?
We don't need to rule it out any more than we need to rule out the activities of unicorns or leprechauns. As long as the universe is predictable, their activities are irrelevant.

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by evolujtion_noob, posted 09-27-2022 7:55 AM evolujtion_noob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by evolujtion_noob, posted 09-28-2022 4:52 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 20 of 507 (899275)
10-11-2022 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by WookieeB
10-11-2022 3:46 AM


Re: ID About to Fail?
WookieeB writes:
AZPaul3 writes:
What criteria would qualify as something falling under design?
​A purposeful arrangement of parts.
Circular.
Now you need to define what "purposeful" means - and how you would distinguish purposeful from purposeless.
What is the purpose of a mountain? Was it designed to direct the weather?

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by WookieeB, posted 10-11-2022 3:46 AM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-11-2022 1:03 PM ringo has replied
 Message 25 by WookieeB, posted 10-11-2022 9:55 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(3)
Message 23 of 507 (899285)
10-11-2022 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Tanypteryx
10-11-2022 1:03 PM


Re: ID About to Fail?
Tanypteryx writes:
Mountains are obviously designed for skiing.
And water was designed for swimming. Notice how it fits around you so snugly. The Designer must have known what shape you would be.

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-11-2022 1:03 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-11-2022 1:42 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 27 of 507 (899319)
10-11-2022 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by WookieeB
10-11-2022 9:55 PM


Re: ID About to Fail?
WookieeB writes:
ringo writes:
Circular.
​LOL, how?
You define a vague concept, "design", with another vague concept, "purpose".
WookieeB writes:
1) having intention or objective
2) conforms to an independently describable pattern and whose arrangement is of a sufficiently low probability.
How do you distinguish something that is purposeful from someting that is not purposeful?
WookieeB writes:
For the latter, i suppose not conforming to the description above.
So you're defining purposeless as not purposeful. That's a little thin, isn't it?
Tell us what the steps are. How, specifically, do you decide that A is purposeful and B is purposeless?

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by WookieeB, posted 10-11-2022 9:55 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by WookieeB, posted 10-11-2022 11:13 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(3)
Message 31 of 507 (899358)
10-12-2022 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by WookieeB
10-11-2022 11:13 PM


Re: ID About to Fail?
WookieeB writes:
Vague doesn't mean circular,
Vague to vague to vague is circular.
WookieeB writes:
There was no demand for additional rigor in an answer based on the question.
So stop weaseling and be rigorous NOW. Define "design" and "purpose" with all the rigor that you can muster.
WookieeB writes:
You asked for definitions. I gave you definitions. You dont like mine? Fine.
I don't like your copypasta either. If you want to promote Intelligent Design, you need to show that you understand the definitions. You have given no such indication. What you have done is the typical IDist weaseling.
WookieeB writes:
ringo writes:
How, specifically, do you decide that A is purposeful and B is purposeless?
Observe; gather data; analyze the item/event. Estimate the relative likelyhood (probability) of the particular arrangement AND identify if it corresponds to some independent pattern.
How do you do that? Probability is math. Show us your calculations.
WookieeB writes:
If both the probability is low and there is a pattern detected, then we can infer purpose.
How do you determine the threshold of probability? I would suggest that any non-zero probability eliminates the need to postulate a designer.

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by WookieeB, posted 10-11-2022 11:13 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by WookieeB, posted 10-25-2022 3:54 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 33 of 507 (900243)
10-25-2022 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by WookieeB
10-25-2022 3:54 AM


Re: ID About to Fail?
WookieeB writes:
There is no obligation to explain more than is asked.
I asked you to to be rigorous: "Define "design" and "purpose" with all the rigor that you can muster."
WookieeB writes:
Design - purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.

See there..."purpose" is used as part of the definition. So if you need to know what "purpose" is, look behind.
And you think that isn't circular?
WookieeB writes:
If you dont like that, then you have a problem with definitions.
I have a problem with schoolboy definitions. I asked you for rigor but apparently you don't have any.
WookieeB writes:
You want more variety, you can google the words yourself.
Of course I can - but I'm trying to determine what YOU know.
WookieeB writes:
My definitions for those words are sufficient.
Not even close. If you're trying to overturn all of science and replace it with voodoo, you need to convince US that you know something.
WookieeB writes:
"A" and "B" both correspond to an independent pattern distinct from the question - that pattern being the English alphabet. They are also both the first and second characters of the alphabet, both showing as uppercase letters, and they are displayed per a possible search space of the UTF-8 (1 byte only which handles all the ASCII characters) encoding on the EvC forums. So these are 2x very specific entries from a 128 character list, which would be a probability of 1 in (128^2), which works out to 6.10 x 10^-5. (Based upon the rules, I could have defaulted to all of the UTF-8 available codepoints, which is what the website is encoded with, and allows 1,112,064 'valid' character codes (and feasibly up to over 2 million if allowing for the invalid codes).
I asked, "How, specifically, do you decide that A is purposeful and B is purposeless?" What does your calculation tell us about purpose?
WookieeB writes:
So while exploring for numbers to plug into some of these questions is fun (and tedious), it is really not necessary. Common sense much more likely points to them being purposeful entries.
Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. If you talk about probabilities, you need to provide numbers. Solid numbers.

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by WookieeB, posted 10-25-2022 3:54 AM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by WookieeB, posted 10-25-2022 8:48 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 36 of 507 (900324)
10-26-2022 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by WookieeB
10-25-2022 8:48 PM


Re: ID About to Fail?
WookieeB writes:
Here are a number of other synonyms for "Design"...
So dictionary definitions and synonyms are all the rigor you can muster?
WookieeB writes:
Enough rigor?
No.
When I was in elementary school, there was no Internet. Computers filled whole rooms and cost millions of dollars. The first calculator I ever saw, two years after high school, could add, subtract, multiply and divide and cost more than $100.
We had encyclopedias. They were our basic research tool. But our teachers told us not to copy from the encyclopedia, to put it in our own words. That would demonstrate that we understood the topic.
So, when I ask you for a definition, I'm not asking you to copy/paste something that took you three seconds to copy off the Internet. I'm asking you to explain it in your own words, to demonstrate that you understand it.
WookieeB writes:
Define circular.
Circular is using "designed" to define "purposeful" and using 'purposeful" to define "designed".
WookieeB writes:
I never said I was trying to overturn science.
Intelligent design is trying to overturn science. Defending Intelligent Design is trying to overturn science.
WookieeB writes:
Now at this point, if you still don't like it, you are either lazy, too stupid to understand basic language, or are incapable of being clear in your requests.
I would say that YOU are the one who is too lazy to put any thought into what design and purpose are. If I have not been clear, go ahead and ask me questions.
WookieeB writes:
You don't seem to be paying attention. I think someone should wave a hand over your head.

"A" and "B" seem to be purposeful.
You're the one who doesn't seem to be paying attention. I said, "How, specifically, do you decide that A is purposeful and B is purposeless?"
I'm asking how you decide that one thing is purposeful and another is not. (A am NOT talking about the letters "A" and "B", by the way.)
WookieeB writes:
If you are willing, describe or name 5 things that are in the room where you are reading this post
I don't see the point, but just to demonstrate that I'm trying to discuss in good faith, I'm looking at:
1. A computer.
2. Shelves of books. (I'm in a library.)
3. Chairs.
4. A fire extinguisher.
5. A clock.
I'm guessing we'll agree that they all have purpose and they were all designed.

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by WookieeB, posted 10-25-2022 8:48 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by WookieeB, posted 11-06-2022 1:53 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 44 of 507 (901256)
11-07-2022 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by WookieeB
11-06-2022 1:53 AM


WookieeB writes:
I gave sufficient and satisfactory definitions of all those words. And that is all you asked for - definitions.
Stop being so legalistic. We're trying to have a discussion here.
WookieeB writes:
You didn't ask for arguments relating to some other idea.
It's supposed to be a DISCUSSION. Arguments are all that matters.
WookieeB writes:
There should be no call for me to write an essay as to the meaning of the words design, purpose, and purposeless when simple dictionary definitions suffice.
Nonsense. That's the first step in any discussion.
WookieeB writes:
My meaning of those words is the same as the many dictionary references I made.

Why do they have to be more?
Because they do not agree with your claims of ID.
WookieeB writes:
Why don’t you give an example of an acceptable answer for one of those. How would you define “purpose”?
The point is that you CAN'T define "purpose" in the context of ID. And you support that statement by your inability to define it. In the context of ID, the "purpose" of something would be the "designer's" purpose. And you claim to not be defining who the designer is. So how could you possibly know the purpose of an undefined designer?
Unless you're willing to have an actual discussion, you can stop wasting my time.

Come all of you cowboys all over this land,
I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command:
To hold a six shooter, and never to run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns.
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by WookieeB, posted 11-06-2022 1:53 AM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by WookieeB, posted 12-05-2022 1:18 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 51 of 507 (903160)
12-05-2022 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by WookieeB
12-05-2022 1:18 AM


WookieeB writes:
ringo writes:
Stop being so legalistic. We're trying to have a discussion here.
​I have answered the question with the format that it was asked in.
That's my point. Instead of answering the letter of the question, answer the spirit of the question.
WookieeB writes:
You didn't ask for arguments; you asked for definitions.
And you claim you provided definitions, so YOU are ready to move on to the discussion even if I am not. So move on.
WookieeB writes:
hen perhaps you should look up the definition of “DISCUSSION”. Because a discussion does not necessarily mean presenting arguments.
If you HAVE any arguments, why are you so reluctant to present them? You're wasting all of your time on meta-discussion ABOUT discussion. Get on with the discussion; present your arguments.
WookieeB writes:
Besides, I did give arguments too. But you seemed to have skipped over them.
That's entirely possible. If I have missed anything, feel free to re-post.
Of course, the other possibility is that you skipped over my rebuttal(s). You might want to check for beams in your eyes.
WookieeB writes:
Show me a “discussion” where the interlocutors are laying out essays on definitions of various words before they start getting to the meat of the discussion.
Um... ALL of them. How could we possibly discuss Flerbend if I don't define what I mean by flerbend?
WookieeB writes:
The same meaning for those words is implied whether I’m talking about ID or whether I’m talking about a computer program or a painting or a dog whining at the door or anything else where those words are appropriate.
Clearly not.
A computer program definitely has a designer. A painting usually has a designer. A dog DOES NOT have an obvious designer. That's why we have to be very clear about what design IS.
So how do you determine what IS designed and what is NOT designed?

Come all of you cowboys all over this land,
I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command:
To hold a six shooter, and never to run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns.
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by WookieeB, posted 12-05-2022 1:18 AM WookieeB has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 63 of 507 (903839)
12-17-2022 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by MrIntelligentDesign
12-16-2022 7:48 PM


Re: ID About to Fail?
MrIntelligentDesign writes:
There are no test nor evidences that "incremental change in an organic structure can build a more complex organic structure", without guided by intelligence, or intention,
You have that backwards. There is no evidence of that intelligence or intention. You might as well say that there is no evidence that airplanes can fly without angels blowing on the wings.

Come all of you cowboys all over this land,
I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command:
To hold a six shooter, and never to run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns.
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 12-16-2022 7:48 PM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 12-17-2022 7:11 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 80 of 507 (903943)
12-19-2022 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by MrIntelligentDesign
12-17-2022 7:11 PM


Re: ID About to Fail?
MrIntelligentDesign writes:
Before any sane scientist could claim that a change is not-intentional or no intelligence involved...
All that is needed to conclude (tentatively) that there is no intelligence or intent involved is a lack of evidence that there is an intelligence or intent involved. Science doesn't have to "prove" a negative. A negative is negative until it is demonstrated to be positive.
MrIntelligentDesign writes:
... that sane scientist must have criteria and numerical dividing lines or numerical limits between the two opposing extremes.
Intelligence and intent are not an "opposing extreme". They're empty speculation. Scientists are in no way obligated to take every hare-brained idea into account.
MrIntelligentDesign writes:
Evolution, Darwin and supporters of Evolution have no criteria for the two, thus, Evolution is wrong.
Those "criteria" are a figment of your imagination. And your conclusion is a non sequitur. Evolution is right, regardless of what scientists or anybody else thinks about it. Nobody can make evolution wrong by having wrong ideas about it.
MrIntelligentDesign writes:
Thus, we can easily conclude that Evolution is an stupid theory, since stupid theory will always conclude without any criteria.
It's your made-up "criteria" that are stupid.

Come all of you cowboys all over this land,
I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command:
To hold a six shooter, and never to run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns.
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 12-17-2022 7:11 PM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 81 of 507 (903944)
12-19-2022 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by MrIntelligentDesign
12-18-2022 1:43 AM


Re: ID About to Fail?
MrIntelligentDesign writes:
Once again, there are no evidences for Evolution.
You seem to have missed the bus. IDists accept evolution. They admit that the evidence points to evolution. Their idea is that an intelligence initiated and/or guides the process.
IDists are creationists who failed to discredit evolution.
You're no IDist. You're just another creationist denier.
MrIntelligentDesign writes:
Give me one evidence for Evolution that support....
Ask a real IDist.

Come all of you cowboys all over this land,
I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command:
To hold a six shooter, and never to run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns.
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 12-18-2022 1:43 AM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 89 of 507 (904017)
12-20-2022 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by MrIntelligentDesign
12-19-2022 9:53 PM


Re: ID About to Fail?
MrIntelligentDesign writes:
Reality is with us, let us talk reality in Biology and in biological world, and see who wins.
That ship has sailed. Evolution won that debate more than a century ago - and it's still racking up points today.

Come all of you cowboys all over this land,
I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command:
To hold a six shooter, and never to run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns.
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 12-19-2022 9:53 PM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 12-21-2022 5:33 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 107 of 507 (904142)
12-22-2022 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by MrIntelligentDesign
12-21-2022 5:33 PM


Re: ID About to Fail?
MrIntelligentDesin writes:
Now, Evolution has already a counter theory that will surely blow Evolution to pieces, it is called Biological Interrelation
Google doesn't even want to search for "Biological Interrelation". It wants to search for "biological interaction", which is a real thing. If I insist on searching for "biological interrelation", it comes up with ONE book, Sayonara Theory of Evolution, Hello Biological Interrelation. The author, Edgar A. Postrado, seems to be a civil engineer - not a biologist.
You seem to be a very, very, very long way from anything resembling a replacement for the ToE.

Come all of you cowboys all over this land,
I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command:
To hold a six shooter, and never to run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns.
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 12-21-2022 5:33 PM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by AZPaul3, posted 12-22-2022 3:09 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 108 of 507 (904143)
12-22-2022 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Phat
12-22-2022 8:35 AM


Re: ID About to Fail?
Phat writes:
Define impediment, by the way. What specifically is belief in a higher power doing to our precious little human minds??
In this specific context, it is impeding people from accepting reality (by definition, a mental illness). You recognize seeing pink elephants as a mental illness; why don't you recognize the inability to see elephants as the same illness?

Come all of you cowboys all over this land,
I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command:
To hold a six shooter, and never to run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns.
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Phat, posted 12-22-2022 8:35 AM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024