Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What constitutes Intelligent design?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 22 of 61 (448849)
01-15-2008 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by ICANT
01-15-2008 1:16 PM


Re: No Merit !
ICANT writes:
I said one time I was going to ask a stupid question on this site and I believe it was sidelined that said the only stupid question it the one that is not asked. I think he was implying if I want to learn I got to ask questions. I also think I have to make statements, then I get hammered, then I have to go study, in the end I gain knowledge.
When you know something and you make statements about it, the information will be appreciated.
When you don't know something and you ask questions, your interest in learning will be admired.
When you don't know something and you make statements anyway, you'll get hammered.
And so we come to this statement from you:
My only problem starts when we get to the orgin of things.
I say I believe God did it. (a dirty statement around here).
Science says hold on there just a minute we don't think it happened that way.
I ask, Well how did it happen? Science says "we don't know" then imply but you can't be right.
Before you get hammered, do you want to take a moment and rethink whether this is really what we've been saying?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2008 1:16 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by MikeMcC, posted 01-15-2008 8:18 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 24 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2008 8:35 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 29 of 61 (449036)
01-16-2008 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by ICANT
01-15-2008 8:35 PM


Re: No Merit !
ICANT in Message 24 writes:
Percy in Message 22 writes:
ICANT in Message 21 writes:
My only problem starts when we get to the orgin of things.
I say I believe God did it. (a dirty statement around here).
Science says hold on there just a minute we don't think it happened that way.
I ask, Well how did it happen? Science says "we don't know" then imply but you can't be right.
Before you get hammered, do you want to take a moment and rethink whether this is really what we've been saying?
No just hammer away I learn better that way.
Okay, let's deal with your statements one at a time.
I say I believe God did it. (a dirty statement around here).
It's an unscientific statement, not a dirty one. Says the football player after scoring the winning touchdown, "I would like to give my thanks to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for helping me overcome adversity tonight." He has as much evidence that Jesus Christ helped him as you do that God has anything do to with what happens in this universe. Claims made in the absence of evidence are unscientific, not dirty.
I ask, Well how did it happen? Science says "we don't know" then imply but you can't be right.
It's not that you can't be right. Just like the lottery winner is the beneficiary of blind luck, it's possible to make a correct scientific statement without evidence, but since it's unsupported by evidence it would only be through blind luck. It isn't that you can't be right, but that your statements are unsupported by evidence and therefore unscientific.
ICANT writes:
1. Where did the singularity come from that our universe came from? Best answer so far we don't know.
As has been pointed out, and not for the first time, there are some plausible scenarios, but not enough evidence to choose between them, or even to know whether any them are correct, so the accurate short answer is that we don't know.
2. Where did life come from? Best answer so far. We don't know.
The same comment applies here. We have some plausible scenarios, but the accurate short answer is that we don't know.
The entire history of science, including right up to this very moment and on into the future, is one of asking questions whose answer is, "We don't know," and then doing the research so that we can eventually say, "Now we know." Of course, we can never know for 100% certain because science is tentative.
I do get the impression around here that most are saying but you can't be right when I say God did it.
Again, it's not that you can't be right, it's that you have no evidence supporting your position.
It's worth pointing out that you're yet another example of someone arguing for God in the science threads, whose purported purpose is to provide a venue for creationists to demonstrate that creationism and ID are science and not religion.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2008 8:35 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ICANT, posted 01-16-2008 2:57 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 30 of 61 (449037)
01-16-2008 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by ICANT
01-16-2008 12:55 AM


Re: No Merit !
ICANT writes:
So if you would like to give me a better answer than "we don't know" give it a go. Three of the regulars on here have given these answers in answer to my questions.
What is wrong with the answer, "We don't know?" For everything we know today in science there was a time when we didn't know. You don't want to make it seem as if you're finding fault with science for not already knowing everything. Naturally there will never come a time when we know everything - I don't think anyone believes that is possible.
I think your real problem is that we're telling you your answers are unscientific, or even wrong, when we don't know the answers ourselves. The actual situation is that while we don't know the answers, we're very certain that your general answer of "God did it" is unsupported by evidence, and that more specific creationist scenarios are definitely wrong (e.g., the universe is 6000 years old) because they are contradicted by the evidence.
In other words, while we don't know the answer ourselves, there are some answers that the evidence tells us can be eliminated. So if, for example, a 6000 year old universe were part of your "God did it" scenario, then yes, we're telling you you're wrong, at least from a scientific perspective.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ICANT, posted 01-16-2008 12:55 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 01-16-2008 3:07 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 34 of 61 (449100)
01-16-2008 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by ICANT
01-16-2008 2:57 PM


Re: No Merit !
ICANT writes:
Until then you have a theory, I have a theory, jar has a theory, and ID has a theory and I am sure there are many more out there.
Jar and I accept the same theory. You and ID have no theory. That's because theories are developed through an intense period of experiment, observation, analysis, replication and prediction verification, something neither your ideas nor ID's ideas have been through. What you and ID have in common is a religious perspective and a large number of misconceptions about science.
You continue to misuse the word "prove" with regard to science.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ICANT, posted 01-16-2008 2:57 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by ICANT, posted 01-28-2008 12:58 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 43 of 61 (451692)
01-28-2008 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by ICANT
01-28-2008 12:58 PM


Re: No Merit !
ICANT writes:
Percy writes:
You continue to misuse the word "prove" with regard to science.
You probably right Percy but I can not find the handy Scientific Dictionary on the internet.
I explained your improper usage once, then later again, and then later yet again, then I finally stopped wasting my breath and said simply, "You continue to misuse the word 'prove' with regard to science."
Can you find the posts where I explained how you were misusing the term, or do you need help?
If you'd like something on-line about theory, read at least the first three paragraphs of the Wikipedia entry on theory. The article also covers tentativity, which is the principle which makes it nonsensical to use the word "prove" in the sense of 100% certainty in science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by ICANT, posted 01-28-2008 12:58 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 46 of 61 (461402)
03-25-2008 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Eclogite
03-25-2008 7:40 AM


Eclogite writes:
What if the design is resident within the existence, character and magnitude of these forces?
Let's say that it is. How would you go about establishing that scientifically through some program involving empirical observations and/or experiments?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Eclogite, posted 03-25-2008 7:40 AM Eclogite has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Eclogite, posted 03-25-2008 9:05 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 48 of 61 (461404)
03-25-2008 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Eclogite
03-25-2008 9:05 AM


And what values of these fundamental constants and these probabilities would constitute evidence for ID?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Eclogite, posted 03-25-2008 9:05 AM Eclogite has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Eclogite, posted 03-25-2008 12:18 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 53 of 61 (461563)
03-26-2008 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Eclogite
03-25-2008 12:18 PM


Eclogite writes:
As to the nub of your question - what values of these constants would constitue evidence - the existing values constitute provisional evidence for intelligent design, they simply do offer scientific proof.
For the sake of discussion let us grant your position, that there is evidence potentially supportive of a universe of purposeful design. What's the next step in the research program that will uncover evidence persuasive to the scientific community?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Eclogite, posted 03-25-2008 12:18 PM Eclogite has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 60 of 61 (461601)
03-26-2008 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Eclogite
03-26-2008 12:03 PM


Eclogite writes:
Sorry guys. I am yet again staggered by the dogmatic responses I am receiving from some of you and the apparent ignorance of how current these ideas are within segments of the scientific community.
How do you know the constants are not set to be ideal for life?
What makes you think they are? Optimally one would seek positive evidence, not a lack of negative evidence. I have no evidence in my possession against a designer, and I also have no evidence in my possession against the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Why should I prefer one over the other? But on the other hand, I have tons of evidence for natural processes producing what we see around us.
There's also the infinite regression problem. A designer must be at least as finely tuned as the universe itself, immediately raising the question of who designed the designer.
Another problem, already mentioned by others, is the inherent assumptions in your arguments. One of your assumptions is that the constants could be different than they are, but you fail to consider that perhaps there are natural principles of which we're yet unaware and by which the values are determined.
Another of your assumptions is that conditions are particularly favorable to life in this universe. But perhaps this universe is, on average compared to other universes, hostile to life, and in other universes most planets on most solar systems would be teeming with complex life. Perhaps our universe is just a terrible universe to be stuck in because in this universe most stars have giant planets inhabiting the inner solar system that are incapable of supporting complex life and that clear the inner solar system of smaller planets that could support life, while in other universes solar systems similar to our own are incredibly common.
I don't think anyone here has any particularly strong objection to the opinion that design is a possibility. But if you instead want to argue that the evidence strongly suggests design and that those who don't accept this are ignorant or dogmatic, well, then there will be plenty of strong objections.
Let's try and stay focused on the issues rather than engaging in a flame war.
If I could step just briefly into Admin mode, please leave moderation issues to the moderators. Your opening sentences about "dogmatic responses" and "apparent ignorance" (quoted above) were the most concerning I've seen so far in this thread. Let moderators like myself take care of the flame war possibilities.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Eclogite, posted 03-26-2008 12:03 PM Eclogite 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