Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8950 total)
36 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (5 members, 31 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,376 Year: 22,412/19,786 Month: 975/1,834 Week: 45/430 Day: 0/45 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design vs. Real Science
Coyote
Member (Idle past 451 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 61 of 142 (600858)
01-17-2011 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Coyote
01-17-2011 12:11 PM


Re: When pigs fly
...if mine is not a model then show how

A. It is not an examination
B. Show why that examination process is not a model
C. Show why the conclusions of that examination oand model do not follow the same rules as your model
D. Show why the conclusions of the ID model arent as valid as any reached by the SM

A. Show us the examination! In science we start with observation, and when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact. Is this what you mean by "examination?" What facts do you have? And how do you evaluate and confirm those facts? You claim something is designed? How do you confirm that fact? How do you tell what is and what is not designed? What rules or criteria do you use? Without a formal process for confirming observations as facts you have nothing.

B. Your "examination" is far from a model. Once you have a body of verified facts, then you can propose hypotheses to explain them. Once those hypotheses have been tested, the surviving ones begin to take on explanatory power, and may eventually end up as what we call a "theory." A model is not a theory; it is more akin to an hypothesis:

Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process

C. You have no verified facts from which to draw conclusions. You only have "I know design when I see it." That is the exact opposite of the scientific method.

D. Same as C.

This is where we came in. Until you can determine reliably what is designed and what is not designed you have nothing. You're at the "I know design when I see it" level and that isn't science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Coyote, posted 01-17-2011 12:11 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-19-2011 3:33 AM Coyote has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 142 (600913)
01-17-2011 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by jar
01-16-2011 10:54 AM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
jar writes:

Buz writes:

When he designed the animals and mankind, for example, he took soil, intelligently assembling the elements into what he wished to make. In that he, having a higher intelligence than that of the creatures which he made, including mankind, he had the knowledge and ability to assemble and fashion the elements into what pleased him to make.

How did he do that Buz, did he move genes around using a pipette or just his fingers.

By the same token, precisely how did each step of evolution allegedly progress into something as complex as the human brain? No generalities or speculative possibilities allowed. You must precisely explain each progressive factor which accomplished the feat and how each factor overcame the tendency of order to regress into disorder all the way from bio-genesis to the modern human brain with all of it's complexity.

Also your problem would be to refute each corroborative evidence supportive to the existence of the Biblical designer as per the Biblical record.

jar writes:

Buz writes:

After he fashioned the body he inflated the lungs with his life giving breath, having properties suitable for initiating life into the fashioned body

How do that work Buz, what exactly is it in that magic breath that is life giving? What are those properties? What is their chemical makeup?

By the same token, without conjecture, possibilities, and/or assumptions ,precisely how did each progressive factor life giving breath overcome each regressive obstacle and progress into the modern function of the human lung?

jar writes:

Buz writes:

Thus the topic debate of this thread, Intelligent Design vs Real Science boils down to debating the evidence supportive to such a designer.

No Buz, the issue is that there is a model in real science while there is NO model or even knowledge to be gained in Inept Design.

You have two problems. You need models for each progressive step of my propositions above and you need to empirically falsify each of the many corroborative evidences of the existence of a designer existing in the Universe having a higher intelligence than what we experience on the tiny speck called Planet Earth; that is a designer capable of fashioning elements available into a functional body and breathing charged energetic elements into the lungs of the fashioned body to bring the fashioned body to life as we observe it.

The work of such a designer required rest after expending the needful energy from the higher energetic designer entity into the created being, as per 2LoT.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 01-16-2011 10:54 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Otto Tellick, posted 01-18-2011 12:26 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 80 by jar, posted 01-19-2011 11:19 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 676 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 63 of 142 (600974)
01-18-2011 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Buzsaw
01-17-2011 6:52 PM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
Hi Buz,

You seem to be making some assertions which are quite distinctly particular to the "Buzsaw worldview/hypothesis", but you are not providing us with any observables or references to objective evidence that could support these assertions.

Meanwhile, you are trying to create a very lopsided debate, by asking others to cite every minute detail regarding the evolution of nerve systems leading up to the human brain, with "no generalities", "without conjecture, possibilities and/or assumptions", which amounts to repeating reams of available evidence spanning at least the following topics:


  • The development of life forms comprising diversified and specialized cells
  • The development of morphological differentiation between "sensor" cells, "motor" cells, and "connector" cells (neuronal structures) between "sensor" and "motor" cells, as well as paths of "communication" between these cells
  • The natural tendency for mutations that yield more elaborate neuronal structures to be successful, because they have broader and more effective behavioral repertoires
  • The clearly demonstrated correlations among DNA, morphology and fossil records that all point uniformly to a particular tree of shared ancestry among all species studied so far
  • The clearly demonstrated correlations in the primate fossil record leading up to homo sapiens, between the ages of fossils, their degree of morphological proximity to modern humans, and their cranial capacity (most recent being largest in terms of brain/body ratio).

All of those points have evidence to back up the explanatory models that have been proposed, and there just isn't enough room on this forum to repeat it all. And you should just admit that you aren't inclined to examine it anyway.

(I'm sure you've seen lots of people provide useful references before: talkorigins.org, books by Gould and Dawkins -- a good read here would be the opening chapters of "The Conscious Brain" by Stephen Rose -- and lots of helpful videos from YouTube folks like AronRa, dprjones, DonExodus2, Thunderf00t, ... But none of this seems to help.)

Anyway, back to your assertions:

Buzsaw writes:

... you need to empirically falsify each of the many corroborative evidences of the existence of a designer existing in the Universe...

Um, how many of these "corroborative evidences" are there, roughly? Where are they enumerated, so we can falsify each one? (I presume it would be off-topic in this thread to do more than cite a usable reference, but just that much would be helpful.)

... that is a designer capable of fashioning elements available into a functional body and breathing charged energetic elements into the lungs of the fashioned body to bring the fashioned body to life as we observe it.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assert that you have absolutely no evidence -- and indeed, not even any hint, beyond just a phrase or two in Genesis -- that an initial, unique human body was fashioned from soil and brought "to life as we observe it" in this manner.

The work of such a designer required rest after expending the needful energy from the higher energetic designer entity into the created being, as per 2LoT.

Whoa. In order to apply the 2LoT in this way, I think you'd have to assert that the "designer entity" and the "created being" are components in a closed system. And I think this would contradict other assertions that you and other theists would normally make regarding the "nature" of your "designer entity": i.e. that "He" is "infinite" in some sense, hence cannot be contained within any sort of closed system.

Really, Buz, although I personally have relatively little formal training in biology or physics, even I can see perfectly well that you're in over your head here. You just aren't thinking through the implications of what you are saying.


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 01-17-2011 6:52 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2011 12:02 AM Otto Tellick has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3869
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 64 of 142 (600978)
01-18-2011 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Dawn Bertot
01-17-2011 11:51 AM


Re: When pigs fly
I have repeadely provided you with a model, by simple examination, observation and conclusions, not any different than yours.

No, you have repeatedly provided bullshit. Your "model" does not qualify as a model and that "process" you give is not how an actual model is developed, so it is quite different from a scientific model. You have provided bullshit yet again.

Now watch Dewise, if mine is not a model then show how

A. It is not an examination
B. Show why that examination process is not a model
C. Show why the conclusions of that examination oand model do not follow the same rules as your model
D. Show why the conclusions of the ID model arent as valid as any reached by the SM


Coyote has already done an excellent job on your illogic (Message 61). To start with, I beg his indulgence by repeating his definition:
quote:
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process


A: You say that a model is an examination. Are you really that densely clueless? They are two entirely different things!

B: You already see the definition of a model. An examination is where you have something that is to be examined, like a patient at a doctor's office, of which observations are made and on which tests are run, etc. The examination process is the set of procedures used to perform the examination. The examination process is used to collect data which could be used in formulating a model or in testing an existing model, but clearly, the examination process is not the model itself. Only an idiot would conflate the two.

C: Well, to start with, you have no model. We can't even tell whether any actual examination ever took place, but since you claim that an examination is a model -- sorry, nearly sprayed my drink there -- then you clearly do not even have any model. No model, no possible way it could generate any conclusions. And assuming for argument's sake the highly unlikely event of an examination actually having been conducted, that examination was conducted with the a priori assumption of the conclusions. Scientifically, your conclusions are worthless.

I've already describe to you how science does it. You refused to read it then, so why should we expect you to read it this time? Well, here I go again, casting yet another pearl before swine.

A model is not created as you want to do it, in a single action out of whole cloth. Rather it is developed in much the same way as a theory is and often in conjunction with the development of a theory. There is something you want to understand. You make observations to determine what existing models and/or theories might apply. If you find one (or a few), you use that as a starting point; if you don't, then you start from scratch. From your understanding of the phenomenon, you formulate hypotheses which you then test. The results of those tests either support or refute your hypotheses, so you reject or correct the unsupported hypotheses, come up with new hypotheses based on what worked or on the possible corrections and you retest. And you repeat that process over and over again. Iteratively, you correct and refine your model. As successful hypotheses accumulate, your understanding of the model increases and improves and develops in the theory which explains the phenomenon.

Clearly, your "rules" are quite different from ours.

D: You have no ID model. Your conclusions were decided upon a priori, before you even started. That is not a valid procedure. GIGO in the purest sense.
The scientific method repeatedly tests its models against the evidence, through hypotheses are are meant to test its strengths and to probe its weaknesses, trying as much to break as to support it. Even if it starts with a false initial formulation, the methodology will determine that to be the case and will direct the process towards the truth. That is a valid procedure.

That was your "method"? It's a bunch of crap. Next time, before you make the silly claim that you're following the same rules as the scientific method, you might want to learn something about the scientific method. I know you're really in lust with ignorance, but it's not a good idea.

But there's another very serious problem for your "model". In your other "reply" (Message 55), you made it clear yet again that your "Designer" is your god, which is supernatural. So your "model" is based on the supernatural. That's what you want to have included in science, the supernatural. Tell me, Dawn, just how the hell are we supposed to form supernaturalistic hypotheses? And just how the hell are we supposed to test them?

You want to be taken seriously? You already know that you need to provide a methodology for detecting and determining design. Well, you also need to provide a methodology for testing supernaturalistic hypotheses.

The bottom line as we understand it is that testing supernaturalistic hypotheses is impossible. Forcing science to use supernaturalistic hypotheses will cripple and even kill it. Or worse, change it into theology. Which would make it completely useless.

Edited by dwise1, : underline


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-17-2011 11:51 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3869
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 65 of 142 (600979)
01-18-2011 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Dawn Bertot
01-17-2011 11:51 AM


Re: When pigs fly
The educational value is that it is science and it is very logical.

No, ID is not science. It doesn't even try to be science, but rather stays firmly on the path of pseudo-science as it employs false claims and deception methods to mislead the public into supporting it and helping it in its agenda to change science radically with the end result of effectively killing science.

Nor is it logical. Rather, it tries to take on the appearance of being logical as it deceives. The use of logical constructs in order to deceive is called sophistry:

quote:
In modern usage, sophism, sophist, and sophistry are derogatory terms, due to the influence of many past philosophers.

A sophism is taken as a specious argument used for deceiving someone. It might be crafted to seem logical while actually being wrong, or it might use difficult words and complicated sentences to intimidate the audience into agreeing, or it might appeal to the audience's prejudices and emotions rather than logic; e.g., raising doubts towards the one asserting, rather than his assertion. The goal of a sophism is often to make the audience believe the writer or speaker to be smarter than he or she actually is; e.g., accusing another of sophistry for using persuasion techniques.

A sophist is a user of sophisms, i.e., an insincere person trying to confuse or deceive people. Sophists will try to persuade the audience while paying little attention to whether their argument is logical and factual.

Sophistry means making heavy use of sophisms. The word can be applied to a particular text or speech riddled with sophisms.


One form of sophism is to use a valid logical construct, but getting the victim to agree to false premises which will then enable the sophist to arrive at the desired false conclusion. In classic examples such conclusions include that day is night or that black is white. Absolutely false conclusions "proven logically".

We have been trying to get you to support the premises of your "logic", which you have absolutely refused to do. The clear mark of a sophist.

For ID to be considered science, it must do the research and publish for the review of scientists. We've been over this with you countless times. Dishonest "public debates" and PR campaigns are not the way. They cannot be voted in as science. There is no royal road. They have to do the real work. Which, of course, they refuse to do and will certainly never do.

For your ID claim to actually be logical, you will need to present the development of that logic, coherently and cogently (IOW, in non-gibberish). Including the premises, which you must present and support fully and defend honestly in discussion. All those things that you refuse to do and will certainly never do.

You know full well what it will take. If ID has any truth to it, then honest exposition and discussion will bring that out. Of course, if ID has no truth to it, then that will also be brought out, which gives you and other IDists strong motivation to misbehave in just the manner in which you have been misbehaving consistently.

You simply dont like it because it implies creation and God.

No, I don't like it because it is a lie and a deception. Worse, the purpose of the deception is to fool us into allowing you to have the schools teach your religious beliefs.

Yet again your abject ignorance is showing; I have explained this before. The idea of creation does not bother me. And while I don't believe in your god, it does not bother me at that you and others do. And when you and others of your faith practice flagrant hypocrisy, I wouldn't say that it bothers me, though I cannot help but shake my head sadly at how typical such misbehavior is. When someone professes to believe something and to practice those beliefs, then that is what he should do. I guess that's just too much to expect.

What does bother me is when someone tries to force his religion on others and especially when they try to use government to that end. And it bothers me when that effort involves lies and deception. And it bothers me when someone attacks something because he doesn't understand it and falsely believes that it poses some kind of threat to his religion. And especially when he seeks to cripple or destroy something to the detriment of the rest of society.

You do not understand science and you are afraid of it, so you seek to change it radically to the detriment of science and of society. Science has been a very successful enterprise, in large part due to its methodology. You want to change that methodology, to replace it with your own, even though your replacement methodology ... doesn't exist. Or at least you have yet to present it despite repeated demands that you do so. My assessment of your dishonest conduct in this matter is that your methodology does not exist. You're just lying to us yet again.

Dawn, if you propose to radically change something as incredibly successful and useful as science, then you'd better have a damned good reason! You have refused to present any.

If you want to tell us that your radical change is necessary to correct a gross deficiency in science or to improve science, then you'd better have a damned good explanation! You have refused to provide any.

Dawn, you need to conduct yourself honestly ... Oh, yeah, you refuse to do even that, and quite emphatically. How sadly typical of your religion.

Refer to the Matthew 7:20 Test. I'm sure you haven't yet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-17-2011 11:51 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 66 of 142 (601060)
01-18-2011 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dawn Bertot
01-17-2011 11:40 AM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
Showing how he intervenes is absolutely not necessary, . . .

If you want to claim that ID is science, then yes, it is necessary.

You need to demonstrate that my clearly existing model is not sufficient to the purpose that it is provides, to demonstrate clear order in the nature of things

Your model does not make predictions, is not testable, and is not falsifiable. Therefore, it does not meet the requirements of science. It is that simple.

Besides all of that,what specifically does your "model" provide to us that IDs does not?

Evolution explains why we see a nested hierarchy, why we see specific transitional fossils but not others, why we see shared ERV's between humans and other apes . . . on and on and on. It explains why we observe these things through testable and falsifiable mechanisms (e.g. mutation and selection).

ID explains none of this, and proposes no testable mechanisms by which any of this could occur. ID can not explain why we see ape-human transitionals but not mammal-bird transitionals. ID can not explain why humans and other apes share the same ERV at the same location in our genomes. ID proposes no testable mechanism by which we could share these ERV's. ID can not explain the nested hierarchy at any level be it living species, fossils species, or in the genome.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-17-2011 11:40 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 67 of 142 (601061)
01-18-2011 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dawn Bertot
01-16-2011 11:39 PM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
ID is an intial examination of obvious order, the likes of which are necessarily the product of design.

You are begging the question. You first need to show, scientifically, that order requires an intelligent designer before concluding so.

To deny that ID has a model is to deny that you yourself have a model, because ours is no different, just not as involved

The differences between ID and real science are quite striking. ID lacks predictions, testable mechanisms, is not falsifiable, and can not explain the evidence we do have (e.g. nested hierarchy). It fails at every turn.

All you need to do to demonstrate that ID is not scientific is to prove that we do not have a method or model

Since you are the one asserting that there is a model it is up to you to supply the evidence of such a model. Lacking such evidence we can only conclude that there is no model. Either you can support your own claims or you can not. It is up to you.

Please explain how the ID model explains the nested hierarchy in a testable and falsifiable manner. If no such model exists, then just say so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-16-2011 11:39 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 68 of 142 (601064)
01-18-2011 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dawn Bertot
01-16-2011 11:39 PM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
ID is an intial examination of obvious order, the likes of which are necessarily the product of design.

It is not clear to me whether you are a flagrant liar or merely immensely stupid.

If you will try to justify the totally unsupported claim that you have just made, then perhaps I shall be able to decide one way or the other.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-16-2011 11:39 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-18-2011 10:56 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 69 of 142 (601150)
01-18-2011 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by jar
01-17-2011 12:25 PM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
And so you have no model to present.
Sorry Charlie, you don't even get the worm.

Atleast dewise (finally) and Coyote made an attempt at responding to the argument and to which I will be responding as soon as possible

it does not surprise me jar, that you did not

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by jar, posted 01-17-2011 12:25 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by dwise1, posted 01-19-2011 1:38 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 70 of 142 (601151)
01-18-2011 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Dr Adequate
01-18-2011 3:14 PM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
It is not clear to me whether you are a flagrant liar or merely immensely stupid.

If you will try to justify the totally unsupported claim that you have just made, then perhaps I shall be able to decide one way or the other.

Not a problem

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-18-2011 3:14 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 142 (601163)
01-19-2011 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Otto Tellick
01-18-2011 12:26 AM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
Auto Tellick writes:

The natural tendency for mutations that yield more elaborate neuronal structures to be successful, because they have broader and more effective behavioral repertoires

The clearly demonstrated correlations among DNA, morphology and fossil records that all point uniformly to a particular tree of shared ancestry among all species studied so far

Thanks for your response, Otto. You have cited the elaborate neuronal structures and the DNA. That's a long way up the ladder into complex systems.

Where I see your difficulty is from bio-genesis and the early stages of evolution where bio-genesis is most unlikely and if the odds eventually come out with life, order to chaos is manifoldly more likely than a steady progression of disorder to order, having no genes, DNA and whatever else to enhance progression of lifeless matter into life and/or primitive life into complex systems. That's just not what we observe in the real here and now. Order tends to chaos and if you get lucky, LoL on progressing from step 1 all of the way up to billions of exceedingly complex systems, for more complex than anything man can create with all of his intelligence going for him.

Mr. natural, having no brain is just to dumb to do up the cosmos, the forces and all of the complex systems which we observe.

Otto Tellick writes:

Um, how many of these "corroborative evidences" are there, roughly? Where are they enumerated, so we can falsify each one? (I presume it would be off-topic in this thread to do more than cite a usable reference, but just that much would be helpful.)

Go to my profile. I've cited a number of them.

Otto Tellick writes:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assert that you have absolutely no evidence -- and indeed, not even any hint, beyond just a phrase or two in Genesis -- that an initial, unique human body was fashioned from soil and brought "to life as we observe it" in this manner.

The evidence lies in the evidence for the validity of the Biblical record and the existence of Jehovah, the Biblical god. The model is an intelligent builder who takes raw materials and designs complex things which require planning, work and time, all of which Jehovah applied to creating the creature.

Otto Tellick writes:

Whoa. In order to apply the 2LoT in this way, I think you'd have to assert that the "designer entity" and the "created being" are components in a closed system.

I've always argued for an infinite closed perpetual machine system, Jehovah existing somewhere in the cosmos of the system, having forever managed, created and destroyed things in the system to please him. This too is somewhere in my profile archives.

Otto Tellick writes:

And I think this would contradict other assertions that you and other theists would normally make regarding the "nature" of your "designer entity": i.e. that "He" is "infinite" in some sense, hence cannot be contained within any sort of closed system.

Hey, my brethren YECs consider the Buzsaw Hypothesis about as daffy as you people do, until I explain it to them and challenge them to refute it. They try to stuff an infinite god into a finite Universe, etc.

Otto Tellick writes:

Really, Buz, although I personally have relatively little formal training in biology or physics, even I can see perfectly well that you're in over your head here. You just aren't thinking through the implications of what you are saying.

Well, this is an evolutionist vs creationist board. Don't expect my creationism to jive with evolution. I've become absolutely positive that Jehovah exists and the Bible is a reliable record. I've been studiously into creationism for over six decades since my conversion. For going on eight years I've weighed Biblical creationism with what I see here on this board and found what I see here to be wanting on many counts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Otto Tellick, posted 01-18-2011 12:26 AM Otto Tellick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Otto Tellick, posted 01-19-2011 2:30 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3869
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 72 of 142 (601179)
01-19-2011 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Dawn Bertot
01-18-2011 10:54 PM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
Atleast dewise (finally) and Coyote made an attempt at responding to the argument and ...

Please stop bullshitting us. We told you the same things we've been telling you all along, but which you repeatedly chose to ignore.

Does that mean that you are finally going to read what we are telling you and are going to respond? Hopefully not with yet more bullshit gibberish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-18-2011 10:54 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 676 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 73 of 142 (601184)
01-19-2011 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Buzsaw
01-19-2011 12:02 AM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
Buzsaw writes:

The evidence lies in the evidence for the validity of the Biblical record and the existence of Jehovah, the Biblical god...

In other words, it's all in your head -- that is to say, in your subjective fixation on positing an external deity (having personality, likes and dislikes) to explain your personal experiences, and in your own idiosyncratic interpretation of "the Biblical record" (especially as it relates to recent and current events, since I presume it includes your notions on "prophecy"). You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, but it would be a mistake to confuse that with science, or to consider it objective.

I've always argued for an infinite closed perpetual machine system, Jehovah existing somewhere in the cosmos of the system, having forever managed, created and destroyed things in the system to please him. This too is somewhere in my profile archives.

Where to begin?

"Infinite closed" sounds like "colorless green" or "invisible pink". Perhaps cavediver knows of some domain in math where the properties "infinite" and "closed" both apply to a particular set (or field or whatever), but if so, he'd be talking about something completely unrelated to what you're talking about.

Any notion of a "perpetual machine" is entirely incompatible with 2LoT, which you seem to want to incorporate in your "system", so this looks like another intrinsic self-contradiction. (But perhaps you, like C.S.Lewis and other apologists, view self-contradiction in religious doctrine as "a feature, not a bug.")

As for Jehovah, having all these remarkable qualities, and doing remarkable things (creating and destroying) for the purpose of "pleasing" himself... that all seems quite whimsical -- and quite unsatisfying from a teleological perspective. Again, you are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but honestly, I believe humanity can (and should) do better than that.

As for finding things in your "profile archive", I'm sorry, but my abilities with the search functions on this forum are too limited. Given the "references" you've provided, I have no hope of finding the enumeration I asked about, or a more detailed discussion of this "system" you speak of. But that's okay, don't sweat it.


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2011 12:02 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2011 9:03 AM Otto Tellick has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 74 of 142 (601188)
01-19-2011 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Coyote
01-17-2011 2:37 PM


Re: When pigs fly
A. Show us the examination! In science we start with observation, and when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact. Is this what you mean by "examination?" What facts do you have? And how do you evaluate and confirm those facts? You claim something is designed? How do you confirm that fact? How do you tell what is and what is not designed? What rules or criteria do you use? Without a formal process for confirming observations as facts you have nothing.

I dont know absolutely whether something is designed or not and it is not necessary for me to know it absolutely to know that a method of examination is model for observation and experimentation or that it is soley a result of natural causes

This is ofcourse what I have been asking you all along, what FACTS is it that you have? You claim you have facts. what do those "facts" do for you in answering questions of origination and origins

Lets try this again. My model is suffiecient in establishing that order and law exist. Your model is sufficient in establishing that things work in a certain manner. this is all either of us has and can conclude from our "Models"

we then draw conclusions from those Models as to the nature of that examination or model. Neither your model or mine lets us demonstrate (prove) either of our conclusions. however, now pay close attention, the models will let us demonstrate order on my side and change on your side. these are visible and demonstratable characteristics, not speculation

B. Your "examination" is far from a model. Once you have a body of verified facts, then you can propose hypotheses to explain them. Once those hypotheses have been tested, the surviving ones begin to take on explanatory power, and may eventually end up as what we call a "theory." A model is not a theory; it is more akin to an hypothesis:

Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process

To establish what? And to what purpose? So you have a model, what does it do and how is it any different than the model that verfies Order and law

Your assumption through a lack of simple understanding about reason itself, assumes I am arguing for design or a designer. Im not, thats a conclusion. By the same process of examination or Model, if you like, we reach our conclusions of order and change. This is all mine does and that is all yours does, no matter its technical involvement

hence ID is initially established by a scientific examination process (model if you like)by the demonstration of order, verifiable in the same way any FACTS that evo can demonstrate

C. You have no verified facts from which to draw conclusions. You only have "I know design when I see it." That is the exact opposite of the scientific method.

that is a lie and you know it. Order and law exist, whether you believe it a product of natural causes or design. I dont initially see design I see Order and establish it the same way you do any fact derived by your so-called superior model

here is a challenge for you. Present any fact, not conclusion, derived by the Model you tout, that would be different or differently derived in the same way Order and law are observed

Your second assumption is that the "ID model" is derived as a result of ID or creationist thinking, it is not. ITS JUST A MODEL an examination, just like anyother examination, or fact, derived in the same way you "facts" are established

This is where we came in. Until you can determine reliably what is designed and what is not designed you have nothing. You're at the "I know design when I see it" level and that isn't science.

And of course this is nonsense as I have just indicated. every examination of physical properties that produces a demonstratable fact (order and law in this case) is science. The only persons that are fooled by the bar (model) you have set are youselves and someone not intelligent enough to not recognize a con job.

The only facts that your model establish are those that can be easily recognized by evaluation, ie, things exist, change happened, things are different, things are still happening. Etc, etc, etc.

Without admitting it and usually denying it, (by carefully disavowing science reaching conclusions) your conclusion from all of this "Model", you tout, is that the above mentioned things are a result of soley natural causes, which like after establishing that Order exists, we are justified in suggesting that design exists

But, and much more importantly, before either of us get to those conclusions we have already used a model and method that qualifies as science. that is of course, unless you are prepared to admit or demonstrate that Order is not present and Law does not reside in nature.

Calling for a demonstration of how God interviens in this process, ignores the very rules you employ in your own research methods and more importanly ignores simple rules of reason. Time, processes, change and order are all present and verfiable by research methods, I dont need conclusions for that to be fact

In the absense of that which is absolutely demonstratable I can only rely on the observable and testable. In your case change over time, in mine Order and law of an intricate nature. Neither of these require conclusions or religion. Both are science in action

Sorry boys thats the way it is and the proposition I have set out here cannot be demostrated as false or invalid

If you think it can be have at it

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Coyote, posted 01-17-2011 2:37 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Coyote, posted 01-19-2011 9:21 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 78 by dwise1, posted 01-19-2011 10:28 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 81 by Taq, posted 01-19-2011 11:23 AM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 82 by dwise1, posted 01-19-2011 11:30 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 142 (601215)
01-19-2011 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Otto Tellick
01-19-2011 2:30 AM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
Otto Tellick writes:

Buzsaw writes:

The evidence lies in the evidence for the validity of the Biblical record and the existence of Jehovah, the Biblical god...

In other words, it's all in your head -- that is to say, in your subjective fixation on positing an external deity (having personality, likes and dislikes) to explain your personal experiences, and in your own idiosyncratic interpretation of "the Biblical record" (especially as it relates to recent and current events, since I presume it includes your notions on "prophecy"). You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, but it would be a mistake to confuse that with science, or to consider it objective.

Otto, where have you been when we've been debating these subjective fixations and interpretations of cited prophecy evidence over the years? You're having now to resort to personal malignment due to the inability to refute the specifics of my message to which you're responding.

I've always argued for an infinite closed perpetual machine system, Jehovah existing somewhere in the cosmos of the system, having forever managed, created and destroyed things in the system to please him. This too is somewhere in my profile archives.

Otto.... writes:


"Infinite closed" sounds like "colorless green" or "invisible pink". Perhaps cavediver knows of some domain in math where the properties "infinite" and "closed" both apply to a particular set (or field or whatever), but if so, he'd be talking about something completely unrelated to what you're talking about.

Perhaps I should have elaborated. Infinite in time and in space, that is. If you have infinite boundless space,, how can there be an outside of?

Otto... writes:

Any notion of a "perpetual machine" is entirely incompatible with 2LoT, which you seem to want to incorporate in your "system", so this looks like another intrinsic self-contradiction. (But perhaps you, like C.S.Lewis and other apologists, view self-contradiction in religious doctrine as "a feature, not a bug.")

My understanding of the law is that equilibrium can be regulated by work and management. Again, the Biblical application lies in the evidence for the Biblical intelligent designer.

Otto... writes:

As for Jehovah, having all these remarkable qualities, and doing remarkable things (creating and destroying) for the purpose of "pleasing" himself... that all seems quite whimsical -- and quite unsatisfying from a teleological perspective. Again, you are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but honestly, I believe humanity can (and should) do better than that.

As for finding things in your "profile archive", I'm sorry, but my abilities with the search functions on this forum are too limited. Given the "references" you've provided, I have no hope of finding the enumeration I asked about, or a more detailed discussion of this "system" you speak of. But that's okay, don't sweat it.

Whimsical and evidence are quite difference. You can begin with addressing the specifics of my message relating to abiogenesis and the problems cited with alleged early stages of life. How do these probabilities stack up with the probabilities of intelligent design, etc? Methinks more is going for my premise and hypothesis, applying logic, probability and observable evidence.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Otto Tellick, posted 01-19-2011 2:30 AM Otto Tellick has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019