Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,287 Year: 5,544/9,624 Month: 569/323 Week: 66/143 Day: 9/19 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design vs. Real Science
frako
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 45 of 142 (600674)
01-16-2011 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Buzsaw
01-15-2011 8:33 AM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
He intelligently fashioned, from the elements, things which he intended to make.
What mechanism or process did he use to make the elements?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 01-15-2011 8:33 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 01-16-2011 10:41 AM frako has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 102 of 142 (612928)
04-20-2011 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Dawn Bertot
04-20-2011 1:48 AM


Re: When creationists talk sense
Show me how when we start with an investigation of the natural world, that is starting with a conclusion.Isnt it true that your just mad that my conclusion about the how and why is different than yours
Because you are not objective if you put your conclusion first and then work back and try to fit the evidence to that conclusion.
Example 1: 200 years ago it was believed that sticking a read hot poker in ones Ear would stop the tooth pain of that person. When starting with the conclusion that the above treatment works you ask the patient does your tooth still hurt, he replies no (in reality because the pain from the burn the hot poker caused to his ear supersedes the pain from the tooth), you have evidence that your treatment works, when the patient returns after a while (if he is a dumb bastard, dint die of an infection from the tooth or the hot poker ...) you simply conclude that another tooth hurts or the same one started to hurt again so you apply the same cure ask the same question get the same response and you are happy with it never seeking any additional evidence because you know your conclusion is true and you have the question are to prove it none of the patients teeth hurt after applying the treatment.
Now an example of how science works:
You made an observfation that lots of peoples teeth hurt so you decide to look into the matter you take a look at the teeth of the people in pain and note your observations (damaged teeth, caries, inflammation of the gums....), You take a look at the structure of the teeth themselves (pulling teeth from corpses dissecting them ...... when you get enough data (as much as possible) you from a hypothesis like tooth aches are caused by the inflammation of the Pulp. Then you test your hypothesis how do you do that you ask yourself the question if tooth pain is caused by the inflammation of the pulp then....... (restoring the pulp, removing the pulp ....) will cure the tooth pain and after a series of trials you find that your cure works and your patients do not die from infection like they do from the other guys cure.
But the other guy comes to your door says teach the controversy, i am doing science too or you are wrong my cure works better no patient has a tooth pain when he leaves my office your patients sometimes still experience some irritation of the teeth for a short while, my tooth pain cure is given by [insert the name of a deity] himself in his holy book .....
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-20-2011 1:48 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-23-2011 4:31 PM frako has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 108 of 142 (613264)
04-23-2011 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Dawn Bertot
04-23-2011 4:31 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense
Since you have horribly misrepresented IDs approach in your example of the Red hot poker, there is very little reason to respond to an example that is way off base
Well no i think i hit the nail on the head idists and creos have their silly idea and are working their way backwards to find observations and evidence to support it conveniently ignoring the evidence that is contrary to their idea and if someone brings that evidence up its the evidence that is wrong because their idea can never change.
How would you proceed if you wanted know where the peolple and their teeth came form, so and so forth, backwards and backwards.
Well given that evolution is an established fact (yes it is evolution happened and is happening) your best bet would be to dig trough the fossil record and look for signs of how the teeth developed, like this dude did it http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...1594990/pdf/joa_1991_0153.pdf
Now i know saying a magic man did it would be simpler for your little mind to grasp bot there is no evidence of a magic man or magic for that matter introducing an unknown to understand an unknown is illogical and plain silly
and watch this please
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-23-2011 4:31 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-23-2011 8:32 PM frako has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 111 of 142 (613269)
04-23-2011 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Dawn Bertot
04-23-2011 8:32 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense
Well no, the only nail you hit was the happy land called 'assertion'. restating that IDst do this or that is not the same as showing me how in some rational form, that starting with the natural world, just like you do, observing its order and law, just like you do, testing its properties, just like you do, formulating a hypothesis, just like you do, testing that hypothesis, just like you do, testing the hypothesis over andover again against different properties, just like yiou do, is STARTING WITH A CONCLUSION
First show me some of those tests
id did not start from observing the natural world or it would have come to the conclusion that evolution was responsible for the diversity of life it started from creationism being non acceptable in schools so they cut the word god and replaced it with intelligent designer
then they went back and found stuff that could be evidence of an intelligent designer ignoring the FACT that we have already figured out how the EYE formed how the FLAGELLUM formed and all where natural processes
hey look thats the very samething you do, I believe its called science, not conclusions
Ok show me the observations made, THE TESTS MADE, AND THE NULL HYPOTHESIS.
What evidence that you posesess could possibly be contrary to the idea of design. You see frako, your still mixing up conclusions with processes.
What evidence do you have that could possibly be contrary to the pink unicorn creating everything yesterday the way it was yesterday.
The evidence i present is evolution and natural processes, introducing unknowables as gods and theories like the one above serve NO purpose and DO NOTHING to advance the knowlage of mankind. If for every unknown man has encountered so fare throughout history was answered by god did/dose it we would still be swinging from treas and primarily eating bananas
Even if Evo were true it would have nothing to say about whether it were designed or not, speaking strickly about change and natural selection. However when we add the obvious order and law in, that is apart of the same scientific investigation, it brings design to light, as much as it would anyother PROCESS, that is stickly scientific
Where are your EXPERIMENTS and TESTS that prove that ORDER AND LAW cannot acure naturally and NEED A DESIGNER, and what is the NULL hypothesis of your hypothesis that law and order need a designer.
its this small, yet vitally important point, that is the debarkation in these legal processes. So it appears, when given the misguided veiw presented by "scientist", that ID is in contrast to evo, which of course it is not. It is this misguided veiw that misrepresents the scientific approach to the process of ID.
What is the process of id what does it explain, how does it explain certain mechanisms.
The inteligent designer did it does not give much information of how when ....
It is about as useful as the a bomb was made by man statement is actually useful in discerning what an a bomb actually is how it works how it was made by man the history of the a bomb ....
this is also why most of these fellas wont meet you publically in debate, because when these simple facts are presented, it shows the complete fallacy of the misguded veiw of "scientist" concerning ID and it shows the secular fundamentalist humanists veiwpoint in a unfavorable light
No most of these fellas are tired from laughing at ridiculous arguments creationists and ides make.
If evolution where true:
- then why are the monkeys in the zoo not evolving in to man
- then where are all the white and the black monkeys that white people and black people evolved from
- then you can act as a monkey an go on about killing people
- we would see a dog give birth to a cat once in a while
- we would find life in peanut butter
- because it is just a theory
Creationism is true:
- because god says so
- because there is evidence of whales on the moon that where shot up form the earth cracking open at the start of the flood
- because we found dinosaurs living today, recent past..
- nothing can come from nothing (except when god dose it, and the big bang was not nothing it was a singularity)
ID is true:
- because complicated things need a designer
- because the bacterial flagellum could not have evolved
- because the eye could not have evolved
- because you have law and order and someone has to make that
- because the world looks like it was designed
Statements like, and the LACK OF PAPERS awaiting peer review do not encourage scientists to go and have formal debates whit those people it probably only encourages them to fight for better education of those morons
and you had your shot at the Dover trial remember the trial where most of the experts on intelligent design WOULD NOT support it under oath, The trial where ID lost so bad you did not go further along the legal process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-23-2011 8:32 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-24-2011 7:14 PM frako has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 125 of 142 (613422)
04-25-2011 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Dawn Bertot
04-24-2011 7:14 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense
@
Not a problem. But to understand the nature of the test you need to understand what science is and to be able to understand a scientific approach to the natural world.
@
Since I have now given you several illustrations and you have simply ignorned them and refused in an argument form, to break it down and show why its PROCESS in not science, Ill try and be a bit more specific and see if you will answer the question directly, given the nature of an accredited scientist.
@
Ignoring Behes conclusions, how could one ignore his status and his completely scientific approach to the natural world. he is a scientist, he uses scientifc methods to understand and evaluate the natural world
Even if you disagree with his conclusions, can you deny his approach?
@
that being the case and ignoring any conclusions as to how and why he thinks things are here, how would you begin to deny that his process or his approach is not science.
@
Do you see your immediate problem. To begin to attack the idea that ID is not science, you need to attack a scientists approach and method, which are clearly the same as yours to even beign to intimate our method is not science
@
To carry the argument even further, lets assume there is some scientist out there that agrees with your conclusion and process of evolution and all its tenets, but he says in an academic way, I dont see how that affects the idea that it could have been designed to evolve by a process of order and law.
@
I think you are starting to see the fallacy of conjoining IDs conclusions with its processes
I think y ou aee starting to see the fallacy of conjoining religious or the supernatural with the methods of the design process
No irreducible complex system has been found in nature throwing his whole argument out the window. His argument has about as much merit as this one: Because there are such things as pink unicorns flying around every day and doing miracles we can say that pink unicorns are gods. <--- fails.
Ill put it in question form for you. Could things have been designed to progress or as you call it evolve. yes or no.
DID they need to be designed in the first place to do ANYTHING. Your question is similar to could the coin have been designed to fall 50% of the time on one side and 50% on the other side. The only difference in my statement is that the coin actually had been designed but not the laws of chance that make it fall 50% of the time on one side and 50% on the other. Let me ask you and obvious question back is it possible there is NO designer?
You clearly have not learned the difference between evidence and proof, nobody is indicating that things could not be a process of natural causes. What however the evidence (process) suggests, is that because very definable order and law exists and because it is not possible to determine either conclusion absolutely, both are very real conclusions determined by very real processes.
Well you see evolution is a model that represents the real world as best it can given the evidence available (actually finding too many fossils and other evidence at this time), ID is not a real conclusion based on real processes it is an idea its basic drive is ireducable complexity witch has not been observed all the law and order you are simply not good things to substantiate ID,s position and so fare every explanation that does not involve magic man dun it was considered way better then the ones who do.
becuae you cannot falsify that it was not created by a designer, correct?
That is the WHOLE PROBLEM can you falsify tooth faries second job is to hold your feet to the ground. Theories in science HAVE TO BE FALSIFIABLE or they are worthless.
Well, now that you have heard it as it really is and needs to be presented, perhaps you laughter will turn into, Hmmmmm?
Go and write a paper and present it to scientists then and your smugness will turn to hmmmm? (crying maybe, screaming scientists are evil....)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-24-2011 7:14 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-25-2011 5:45 PM frako has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 141 of 142 (614617)
05-05-2011 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Dawn Bertot
05-01-2011 4:48 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense
Here is an example. What physical 'tools' does a pshychologist use in evaluating, the reality of a persons mental problems. Is there a catalouge number for his tools? Or are we not going to consider a pshychologist a scientist
You see Ringo, you cant just assert that, the only way to measure reality is with a 'tool', you have got to demostrate it. the brain is a 'real object', used to evaluate and measure real things. You just dont like it because it is counterfactual to your borrowed arguments and position and because you have no actual response and you know it
Well i say your brain is not calibrated because i see no order all i see is chaos.
All my brain measures is chaos so whiteout an objective measuring tool for order and chaos we cannot know if the nature of reality is order or chaos.
IOWs, they have no reality themselves, as say, the order in a cell in the body, which is real and measurable with insturments and my brain
Well your instruments are flawed there is no order in a cell only the one you impose.
All you have in a cell is a randomly generated machine trough the process of evolution.
Unless you can demonstrate that this is the only way to measure anything, and respond to my actual arguments, in response to your query, then it follows you are still only working with a faulty premise
Well i guess your way of mesuring things works the only problem is your "instrument" is not calibrated The only other option is your method is not objective but that cant be right can it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-01-2011 4:48 PM Dawn Bertot 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