Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
72 online now:
AZPaul3 (1 member, 71 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 8/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Attn IDers, what would it take...?
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1725 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 1 of 86 (243665)
09-15-2005 2:59 AM


On a recent thread I got pretty deep into discussions about Archaeoptrix with an IDer.

The IDer made the statement that "if it could be shown that dinosaurs with downy feathers pre-date archaeoptrix, that would be a large step towards his accepting ToE."

Presenting links to several finds showing just this, I figured the issue was settled.

Instead, the finds were discounted out of hand.

Which leads me to this question: "Exactly what would it take to convince an IDer of ToE?"

edit - condensed, clarified, simplified

This message has been edited by Nuggin, 09-15-2005 03:16 AM


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 09-15-2005 3:09 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 09-15-2005 3:38 AM Nuggin has taken no action

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 86 (243668)
09-15-2005 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
09-15-2005 2:59 AM


Edit just a wee bit
Make the opening statement a wee bit more concise and I'll stick it in the Intelligent Design forum or Is it Science? or wherever you want it.

This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 09-15-2005 01:14 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 09-15-2005 2:59 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Nuggin, posted 09-15-2005 3:13 AM AdminPhat has taken no action

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1725 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 3 of 86 (243671)
09-15-2005 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPhat
09-15-2005 3:09 AM


Re: Edit just a wee bit
On it, check back in a sec...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 09-15-2005 3:09 AM AdminPhat has taken no action

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 86 (243676)
09-15-2005 3:21 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15931
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 5 of 86 (243679)
09-15-2005 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
09-15-2005 2:59 AM


"Exactly what would it take to convince an IDer of ToE?"

I dunno...I've never had a problem believing in a literal God and His literal Son Jesus Christ without necessarily embracing literal word for word Bible. My belief is not majority consensus in the churches I have attended, however. A sister question to this would be:

What would it take to convince traditional geologists/biologists/archeologists that I.D. is valid science?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 09-15-2005 2:59 AM Nuggin has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Parasomnium, posted 09-15-2005 4:04 AM Phat has taken no action

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2199
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 6 of 86 (243682)
09-15-2005 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Phat
09-15-2005 3:38 AM


Two questions, two answers.
Nuggin asks:

quote:
What would it take to convince an IDer of ToE?

Phatboy adds:

quote:
What would it take to convince traditional geologists/biologists/archeologists that I.D. is valid science?

You only have to look at the behaviour of both for answers to those questions.

IDers typically don't accept evidence and logical reasoning because they have their "truth" carved in stone. Nothing can convince them. ID is nothing but a ploy for something else, namely to force their religion on others.

Evolutionists have asked over and over for supporting evidence for ID's claims. Also they want ID to make scientific predictions that can be tested. And finally they want ID to show it's falsifiability.

This should be a hint. Evidence, predictions, and falsifiability might convince evolutionists, because that's what convinced them of evolution. In other words, they want ID to finally do what it always claims to do, but never does: produce some actual science.

So, to recap:
What would it take to convince an IDer? Nothing, they can't be convinced.
What would it take to convince an evolutionist? Science.

This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 15-Sep-2005 09:08 AM


We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 09-15-2005 3:38 AM Phat has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 09-15-2005 4:09 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 576 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 7 of 86 (243683)
09-15-2005 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Parasomnium
09-15-2005 4:04 AM


Re: Two questions, two answers.
What would it take to convince an IDer? Nothing.
What would it take to convince an evolutionist? Science.

no no, i think that's unfair.

divine intervention, visions, or the voice of god saying something to the effect of "i used evolution, silly" might be able to convince an IDer.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Parasomnium, posted 09-15-2005 4:04 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Phat, posted 09-15-2005 4:13 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 9 by Parasomnium, posted 09-15-2005 4:16 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15931
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 8 of 86 (243684)
09-15-2005 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by arachnophilia
09-15-2005 4:09 AM


Re: Two questions, two answers.
Additionally, if an evolutionist saw an angelic appearance or a distinct demonstration of a supernatural event..with a friend, perhaps to corroborate...science would be un-necessary to prove God from that point. They might well remain evolutionists, however. I think that I.D. is a house of cards verified by other I.D.ers with impressive resumes. It is a belief in a faith that has been embraced before the evidence was found. Evidence was then "explained" to legitimize it.

This message has been edited by Phatboy, 09-15-2005 02:15 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 09-15-2005 4:09 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by arachnophilia, posted 09-15-2005 4:46 AM Phat has taken no action

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2199
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 9 of 86 (243685)
09-15-2005 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by arachnophilia
09-15-2005 4:09 AM


Remember Dostojewsky
Remember what the Grand Inquisitor said to Jesus when he returned to earth in Spain (in "The Brothers Karamazov", by Dostojewsky): "Why have you returned? We had it all worked out fine, we don't need you here."

That's the kind of thought we're up against, don't underestimate the power of an idea.


We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 09-15-2005 4:09 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by arachnophilia, posted 09-15-2005 4:44 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 576 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 10 of 86 (243687)
09-15-2005 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Parasomnium
09-15-2005 4:16 AM


Re: Remember Dostojewsky
i'm sorry, you lost me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Parasomnium, posted 09-15-2005 4:16 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Parasomnium, posted 09-15-2005 4:49 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 576 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 11 of 86 (243688)
09-15-2005 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Phat
09-15-2005 4:13 AM


Re: Two questions, two answers.
Additionally, if an evolutionist saw an angelic appearance or a distinct demonstration of a supernatural event..with a friend, perhaps to corroborate...science would be un-necessary to prove God from that point.

nah, we'd probably go about looking for the sensible naturalistic explanation for it. didn't you watch x-files? it's a mulder/scully problem.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Phat, posted 09-15-2005 4:13 AM Phat has taken no action

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2199
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 12 of 86 (243689)
09-15-2005 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by arachnophilia
09-15-2005 4:44 AM


Re: Remember Dostojewsky
arachnophilia writes:

i'm sorry, you lost me.

What I mean to say is that some ideas are so dogmatically locked in place that even genuine divine intervention might be either dismissed as a hoax by staunch believers, or be hushed by those who benefit from the status quo.

This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 15-Sep-2005 10:00 AM


We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by arachnophilia, posted 09-15-2005 4:44 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by arachnophilia, posted 09-15-2005 12:00 PM Parasomnium has taken no action

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1725 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 13 of 86 (243802)
09-15-2005 10:53 AM


Not a chance to Bash ID
Hey guys, I intended this thread not as a chance to bash ID (we've got lots of those threads and I bash away with the best of them), but as an honest question.

Really, can an IDer please explain to me what sort of evidence would be necessary to invalidate their possition?

Say what you will about Faith, she's answered this question for the YECers. "No amount of evidence will invalidate their possition."

I think that's a wrong possition to take, but it's definitely an answer to the question.

So IDers, please, step up. What would it take to convince you? What bit of evidence would you assume wouldn't exist if your theory was correct?

Heck, this doesn't even have to be your own thoughts on the matter. Give me what the experts believe would invalidate.


Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Warren, posted 09-15-2005 4:17 PM Nuggin has taken no action

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 576 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 14 of 86 (243828)
09-15-2005 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Parasomnium
09-15-2005 4:49 AM


Re: Remember Dostojewsky
What I mean to say is that some ideas are so dogmatically locked in place that even genuine divine intervention might be either dismissed as a hoax by staunch believers, or be hushed by those who benefit from the status quo.

ah yes. but that's to be expected -- they DID kill jesus the first time around too, because he said the wrong things.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Parasomnium, posted 09-15-2005 4:49 AM Parasomnium has taken no action

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 86 (243887)
09-15-2005 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Nuggin
09-15-2005 10:53 AM


Re: Not a chance to Bash ID
Nuggin: Really, can an IDer please explain to me what sort of evidence would be necessary to invalidate their possition?

Warren: This is easy.

Donald Ingber writes:

"At this time, the late 1970s, biologists generally viewed the cell as a viscous fluid or gel surrounded by a membrane, much like a balloon filled with molasses." [Sci Amer, Jan 1998].

Back then I didn't suspect design. But things have changed. In 1998 an issue of the journal Cell was devoted to molecular machines, with articles like "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines" and "Mechanical Devices of the Spliceosome: Motors, Clocks, Springs and Things." Referring to his student days in the 1960's, Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote that "the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered." In fact, Dr. Alberts remarked, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory with an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. He emphasized that the term machine was not some fuzzy analogy; it was meant literally.

For me it's very straightforward - the cell as a "factory" full of nanomachines = design; the cell as a "bag of solution" = non-design.

If the cell is designed, we will find that they look more and more like Paley's watch. Agutter et al.'s says that "Cells are highly ordered structures- so far as their internal dynamics are concerned. Most physicochemical processes are channeled or 'directed' rather than random and suggests that little occurs in the cell on the basis of chance or as a simple consequence of the law of mass action."

On the other hand, my position will be invalidated if this "highly ordered state" is really an illusion. That is, if further examination actually returns us more closely to the "bag of solution" view of the cell, my design inference behind the origin of the cell will be discredited.

This message has been edited by Warren, 09-15-2005 04:20 PM

This message has been edited by Warren, 09-15-2005 04:32 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Nuggin, posted 09-15-2005 10:53 AM Nuggin has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Chiroptera, posted 09-15-2005 4:31 PM Warren has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022