Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,598 Year: 4,855/9,624 Month: 203/427 Week: 13/103 Day: 2/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design vs. Real Science
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 816 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 76 of 142 (601216)
01-19-2011 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Dawn Bertot
01-17-2011 12:01 PM


again I ask......
clear, obvious, observable and demonstrable order are not "I know it when I see it"
So is this field in Spitsbergen designed, or not?
Why can I never get an answer to this picture?

"God is Santa Claus for adults."
- Mad Kallie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-17-2011 12:01 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2011 5:53 PM Coragyps has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2187 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 77 of 142 (601218)
01-19-2011 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Dawn Bertot
01-19-2011 3:33 AM


Re: When pigs fly
Dawn, your own writings show that when it comes to science and the scientific method you have no clue.
I'm not going to waste any more time with you for a while.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-19-2011 3:33 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5972
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 78 of 142 (601229)
01-19-2011 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Dawn Bertot
01-19-2011 3:33 AM


Re: When pigs fly
As I feared, you're just spewing yet more bullshit.
Dawn, you never fail to disappoint.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-19-2011 3:33 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 79 of 142 (601238)
01-19-2011 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Buzsaw
01-14-2011 11:44 PM


Re: Length Of Genesis Days.
That appears to be a different argument than the one you were having with Eta. More to the point, it seems to be in response to a side issue.
To the topic, you were saying something about the suppression of information about ID and the brainwashing of children in a secular assembly line. You concluded
Thus the evidence for ID is never known by the young impressional empty minds
Is your avoidance of my counterargument a concession on your part?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Buzsaw, posted 01-14-2011 11:44 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34054
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 80 of 142 (601240)
01-19-2011 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Buzsaw
01-17-2011 6:52 PM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
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.
We have that model Buz, it is called the Theory of Evolution".
Now present yours.
Also your problem would be to refute each corroborative evidence supportive to the existence of the Biblical designer as per the Biblical record.
If and when you present such evidence we will examine it. So far ALL the so called evidence you have presented has been refuted.
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?
HUH?
Word salad. I don't even know of any evidence there is some life giving breath or what any of the rest of that alleged sentence means.
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.
More word salad Buz, utter nonsense.
If and when you ever present any "corroborating evidence" THEN it can be examined.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 01-17-2011 6:52 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 81 of 142 (601241)
01-19-2011 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Dawn Bertot
01-19-2011 3:33 AM


Re: When pigs fly
we then draw conclusions from those Models as to the nature of that examination or model.
Once again, ID has no model. It started from a conclusion. ID is not testable nor is it falsifiable. ID can not explain the evidence we do have. ID fails at every turn when it comes to being science.
Compare this to evolution. Using the theory of evolution we can construct testable hypotheses. For example:
"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
Just a moment...
Using this hypothesis we can test to see if humans and other apes share a common ancestor. So what are the ID hypotheses, and how are they testable?
Neither your model or mine lets us demonstrate (prove) either of our conclusions.
False. The evolutionary model lets us demonstrate shared ancestry between humans and other apes as shown above. It does so in a testable and falsifiable manner. The ID model doesn't have these attributes. It is not testable and it is not falsifiable.
Your second assumption is that the "ID model" is derived as a result of ID or creationist thinking,
Do a google search for "cdesign proponentist". That should clear up a lot.
ID is the result of "creation science" losing court cases and being booted out of schools. ID is an attempt to dress creationism in a lab coat and try to sell it as a science. That is the whole point of ID. No scientist is using ID to do scientific research. The only way in which ID is used is to push the creationist agenda of getting religion into science classes.
every examination of physical properties that produces a demonstratable fact (order and law in this case) is science.
Science is more than examination. Gathering facts is but a single step in the scientific method. You also need to construct hypotheses and then test those hypotheses. ID is incapable of doing this which is why it is not science.
unless you are prepared to admit or demonstrate that Order is not present and Law does not reside in nature.
Observing order and law is but the first step in the scientific method. You also need to construct a hypothesis as to the cause of these observations, and then design experiments that will test this hypothesis (and the null hypothesis). ID does not do this. It jumps over the hypothesis and experiment stages of the scientific method and lands at the conclusion. This is why ID is not science.
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.
Making claims with no experimental support ignores the rules of science which is why ID is not science. If you want to claim that ID is science then you must follow the rules of science. The theory of evolution does have experimental support which is why it is science.
In the absense of that which is absolutely demonstratable I can only rely on the observable and testable.
So how do we test the claim that Order and Law are the product of an intelligent designer? Please describe these experiments, or admit that ID is not science.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-19-2011 3:33 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by dwise1, posted 01-19-2011 11:41 AM Taq has not replied
 Message 99 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-19-2011 11:08 PM Taq has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5972
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 82 of 142 (601242)
01-19-2011 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Dawn Bertot
01-19-2011 3:33 AM


Re: When pigs fly
Coyote writes:
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
Nonsense! Especially now that you have been told what a model is (and, no, it is not mere examination):
Coyote writes:
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 model needs to be constructed and verified. It is verified through testing it by examination of real-world evidence. Even if you were to construct a model out of whole cloth based solely on your prior understanding of how that which is being modelled works, it still needs to be tested to verify that it does actually describe what which it is supposed to model. The model must be tested.
You have presented no model and have even erroneously identified the process of examination as your model -- the examination process is frequently guided by the model, but it is no more the model itself than an actual building is the same thing as a set of blueprints.
But let us extremely charitable and assume that you do have a model, one which says that everything is designed. How did you construct that model? Out of whole cloth, based solely on your a priori understanding. OK, that might work. Now, how did you test that model? Com'on, we're waiting. How did you test that model? What do you mean, you have never tested your model? Then that means that you have nothing!
Dawn, in order to test your model, you need to have what Coyote is asking for, a formal process for confirming your subjective observations as facts, a formal process for detecting and determining design. Something which you now finally admit that you do not have.
Well, Dawn, if you have no way to detect or determine design, then how could you possibly test your model? And if you cannot test your model, then how could you possibly know that it actually does model nature?
Dawn, by your own admission, you have nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-19-2011 3:33 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5972
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 83 of 142 (601245)
01-19-2011 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Taq
01-19-2011 11:23 AM


Re: When pigs fly
Observing order and law is but the first step in the scientific method. You also need to construct a hypothesis as to the cause of these observations, and then design experiments that will test this hypothesis (and the null hypothesis). ID does not do this. It jumps over the hypothesis and experiment stages of the scientific method and lands at the conclusion. This is why ID is not science.
From Dawn's Message 55, also repeated in his Message 59, (my emphasis added):
Dawn writes:
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
You cant jump from point A to C by assuming all these things concerning our methodology
Dawn and his fellow IDists doing exactly what they berate others for allegedly doing.
Dawn, meet your own petard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Taq, posted 01-19-2011 11:23 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by barbara, posted 01-19-2011 3:15 PM dwise1 has replied

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 4883 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 84 of 142 (601267)
01-19-2011 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by dwise1
01-19-2011 11:41 AM


Re: When pigs fly
Taq responded with, "What test could prove that order and law are the product of an intelligent designer?" is not possible since intelligent has never been defined by popular poles that can all agree on one specific definition.
In reality isn't that how facts are determined by getting the majority to agree on the definition of it? Anyway, back to law and order, doesn't this suggest the opposite of chaotic and random behavior of mutations?
The most important evidence that science can solve is how regulatory genes and Hox genes are formed by natural processes. Natural processes meaning auto responses to specific causes that react to them without directing it by any other source.
For example, science daily wrote about the discovery of MqsA and MqsR complex that are regulatory genes found in biofilm formation on prosthetic devices used in the human body. These molecules have the ability to control their own transcription. It binds its own genetic promoter and also binds and regulates the promoters of other genes which is important in biofilm formation.
This makes it difficult to treat in patients with antibiotics because they cannot penetrate this organized system of behavior that is directed by those gene molecules.
This discovery is important because for the first time there is evidence of cells directing its own ability to survive with its genes and do not leave much room for chance to be a factor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by dwise1, posted 01-19-2011 11:41 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by dwise1, posted 01-19-2011 3:29 PM barbara has not replied
 Message 86 by Taq, posted 01-19-2011 4:07 PM barbara has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5972
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 85 of 142 (601271)
01-19-2011 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by barbara
01-19-2011 3:15 PM


Re: When pigs fly
Whatever does any of that have to do with anything in that message to which you just "replied"?
The scientific method is well-established and knowledge of it is freely available. Dawn falsely claims that his own ID "methodology" and "model" are identical to those of the scientific method. In my quote of him (in which your own quote does not appear), Taq offers a brief description of the sequence of actions to be taken in the scientific method and points out that ID vitally essential key steps. I then quoted Dawn in one of multiple cases of him accusing us of skipping steps. I concluded that that has Dawn hoisting himself on his own petard.
So what does your "reply" have to do with that?
BTW, you left out the effects of natural selection. It has been several decades, the better part of a century, since any non-creationist has seriously equated evolution with mutation. You might want to review the Grand Synthesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by barbara, posted 01-19-2011 3:15 PM barbara has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 86 of 142 (601283)
01-19-2011 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by barbara
01-19-2011 3:15 PM


Re: When pigs fly
In reality isn't that how facts are determined by getting the majority to agree on the definition of it?
No. Facts become facts when many people observe the same thing. Facts are the world's data, the observations. Theories and models explain the data.
The most important evidence that science can solve is how regulatory genes and Hox genes are formed by natural processes. Natural processes meaning auto responses to specific causes that react to them without directing it by any other source.
DNA regulation is done through binding of protein or RNA to specific DNA sequences. This either shuts down transcription or turns transcription on. Mutations to either the DNA binding site or the DNA binding protein/RNA can alter the timing and strength of regulation.
You might want to check out Thomas Schneider's EV program. It models the de novo evolution of DNA binding sites.
http://www-lmmb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by barbara, posted 01-19-2011 3:15 PM barbara has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 142 (601295)
01-19-2011 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Coragyps
01-19-2011 9:13 AM


Re: again I ask......
Coragyps writes:
So is this field in Spitsbergen designed, or not?
Since there's nothing complex about it, being likely naturally caused by things dropping from the sky, it is not designed.
There's nothing about it that would diminish the arguments for intelligent design.

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 76 by Coragyps, posted 01-19-2011 9:13 AM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Panda, posted 01-19-2011 7:21 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 89 by Coragyps, posted 01-19-2011 8:31 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3794 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 88 of 142 (601311)
01-19-2011 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Buzsaw
01-19-2011 5:53 PM


Re: again I ask......
Buzsaw writes:
Since there's nothing complex about it, being likely naturally caused by things dropping from the sky, it is not designed.
If something is not complex: it is not designed. Yes?
How do you gauge complexity?
What did you measure to ascertain that the object in the image had no complexity?
You mentioned that the object was probably naturally caused.
Is there a link between 'naturally caused' and 'not designed'?
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2011 5:53 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2011 9:58 PM Panda has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 816 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 89 of 142 (601322)
01-19-2011 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Buzsaw
01-19-2011 5:53 PM


Re: again I ask......
being likely naturally caused by things dropping from the sky,
Yeah, shit falls from the sky and splashes rocks around down here all the time, Buz.
What isn't "complex" about hundreds of acres of stones all gathered up into rings with bare centers? If you saw a dozen rings like those in your backyard, would you think first of gophers or of neighbor kids? Or of shit falling out of the sky?
Hint: neighbor kids would be my first choice if it were in my backyard. There aren't lots of kids in Spitsbergen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2011 5:53 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2011 9:49 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 142 (601333)
01-19-2011 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Coragyps
01-19-2011 8:31 PM


Re: again I ask......
Coragyps writes:
being likely naturally caused by things dropping from the sky,
Yeah, shit falls from the sky and splashes rocks around down here all the time, Buz.
What isn't "complex" about hundreds of acres of stones all gathered up into rings with bare centers? If you saw a dozen rings like those in your backyard, would you think first of gophers or of neighbor kids? Or of shit falling out of the sky?
Hint: neighbor kids would be my first choice if it were in my backyard. There aren't lots of kids in Spitsbergen.
I meant to say that the phenomenon was not intelligently designed. Have there been tests for meteor strikes in the region? If a meteor shower struck the terrain, containing relatively similar type rocks, perhaps it created the mounds. Erosion would wash the higher rocks so as to distinguish them from the surrounding terrain.
What do geophysicists say caused the phenomenon?

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 89 by Coragyps, posted 01-19-2011 8:31 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Coyote, posted 01-19-2011 9:55 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024