Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8942 total)
28 online now:
Lammy (1 member, 27 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,842 Year: 18,878/19,786 Month: 1,298/1,705 Week: 104/446 Day: 104/64 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The evidence for design and a designer
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2479 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 93 of 153 (586087)
10-11-2010 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by tesla
10-10-2010 6:36 PM


Re: What experiments?
In your previous post you stated

There is enough evidence and belief for the belief of God and a created universe

So why do you need

’m still doing data crunching and unless I am able to convince an astrophysicist to do the math I need, it’ll be a few years before I can show the validity of my hypothesis for a potential theory.

to show the evidence which you previously stated that existed?


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 6:36 PM tesla has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18875
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 94 of 153 (586108)
10-11-2010 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by tesla
10-10-2010 11:44 PM


Re: What experiments?
tesla writes:

Yeah. It’s hard to explain I suppose. Probably best left alone for now. I can try to state it a better way but it could just become word salad.

What the hell:

...

Yes, it's word salad. I think you must have created your own terminology, for instance, necessities. Necessities is not a scientific concept. Here's a list of things that you need to define, correct or clarify:

  • Necessities - not a scientific concept, what's this mean?

  • Laws that govern necessities - what laws?

  • Singularity - not believed by most physicists to actually have ever existed

  • "governable law to exist in energy" - reads like nonsense

  • "energy to evolve" - what does it mean for energy to evolve?

  • "So time is irrelevant, therefore necessity is irrelevant" - how does one follow from the other, and what is "necessity" anyway?

  • "However, to argue object (a), has intelligence: (b) causing the necessity of evolution..." - how does one follow from the other?

  • "...(c) would fit in a necessity argument." - what is a "necessity argument?"

  • "Because intelligence is a possibility for a single energy to exist without time, nor introduction; then change." - Right now, in the light of day, do even you know what this means?

  • conflict - What do you mean by "conflict?" Maybe you mean interaction, a common term in science?

Much of this might be moot. I think your argument is based upon the singularity being something real, and as I alluded in the third point, the singularity isn't thought to be anything real. It just falls out of math that it is believed to no longer apply before T=10-43.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 11:44 PM tesla has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Larni, posted 10-13-2010 8:58 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18875
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 95 of 153 (586111)
10-11-2010 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by tesla
10-10-2010 11:14 PM


Re: What experiments?
tesla writes:

Since evolution is true, that things have evolved; Then there was a 'before'.
Evolution in its simplest definition is simply: change.

Sure, and you can ask what came before great grandpa and what came before hominids and what came before mammals and what came before amphibians and so forth.

But when you start asking what came before the Earth or before the sun or before the galaxy or before matter you're not talking about evolution anymore. It's fine if you have a cosmological argument for design and a designer based upon change, but if you're going to refer to this change as evolution then be careful to make clear you're not talking about biological evolution, which is heritable change. The change in the universe that you're talking about is not heritable.

If you're not clear about how you're using the word evolution then people will object that evolution has nothing to do with cosmology, or they won't say anything and just assume you're hopelessly confused. Remember, this site hosts the creation/evolution debate, so the definition of evolution people assume is in play is the one for biological evolution. When you're not using it that way then make certain people know it.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 11:14 PM tesla has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-12-2010 6:52 PM Percy has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 96 of 153 (586361)
10-12-2010 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Percy
10-11-2010 8:31 AM


Re: What experiments?
If you're not clear about how you're using the word evolution then people will object that evolution has nothing to do with cosmology, or they won't say anything and just assume you're hopelessly confused. Remember, this site hosts the creation/evolution debate, so the definition of evolution people assume is in play is the one for biological evolution. When you're not using it that way then make certain people know it.

While I understand everything testa is doing here, (and doing a fine job, I might add),if it is not acceptable to you, when where and how can we discuss my original proposition, and tie it in with telsa's comments

Since it is my damn thread to begin with. Just kidding of course, on that part

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 10-11-2010 8:31 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Percy, posted 10-12-2010 9:41 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18875
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 97 of 153 (586378)
10-12-2010 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Dawn Bertot
10-12-2010 6:52 PM


Re: What experiments?
Hi Dawn Bertot,

Your objection makes no sense. I think you might have misunderstood the point about the potential for confusion when one is unclear about which meaning of the term evolution one is using.

Since this is your thread, why don't you resume participation.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-12-2010 6:52 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-16-2010 4:33 PM Percy has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 98 of 153 (586428)
10-13-2010 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Percy
10-11-2010 8:23 AM


Re: What experiments?
Necessities - not a scientific concept, what's this mean?

I think he means cause and effect here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Percy, posted 10-11-2010 8:23 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8097
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 99 of 153 (586511)
10-13-2010 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by tesla
10-10-2010 7:47 PM


I am trying to get scientists to accept it is a potential. Science does not explore, nor research, something that has no potential. And they have decided God is a religious aspect and not relevant to science even if true.

You need to understand what "potential" means to scientists. A theory that has potential is a theory that has the following characteristics:

1. Explains the data we already have, and explains why we haven't made other observations.

2. Makes testable predictions that differ from current theories.

3. Is potentially falsifiable.

4. Points to new questions and new research.

ID and creationism have none of these characteristics which means they have no potential as scientific theories or areas of research. The whole point of creationism is to stop asking questions and accept dogmatic religious beliefs without evidence or any potential way of testing it.

And they have decided God is a religious aspect and not relevant to science even if true.

The whole point is that there is no way of determining if it is true, therefore it has no potential as a scientific explanation.

However, it can be explored.

Then why has no one done it? To my knowledge, no scientist is basing actual scientific research on ID creationism, and no one is planning to. No scientist is submitting scientific research grants based on proposed research into ID creationism. No scientist is publishing peer reviewed papers based on ID creationism. There is no exploration, only indoctrination.

The definition of God can be mathematically analyzed for potential.

You would think that after such a statement you would describe how it could be analyzed, but you don't. Why is that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 7:47 PM tesla has acknowledged this reply

Taq
Member
Posts: 8097
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 100 of 153 (586513)
10-13-2010 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by tesla
10-10-2010 7:19 PM


Re: What experiments?
Oh I get it, we don't know, so we should stop looking for answers right?

Not at all. We don't know which is why we should be looking into it. The problem with ID creationism is that it says, "God did it, don't question it." ID creationism is a scientific dead end.

The truth is, God IS, is just as viable as:

Based on what? Are leprechauns just as viable as God?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 7:19 PM tesla has acknowledged this reply

dwise1
Member
Posts: 3770
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 101 of 153 (586586)
10-14-2010 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by tesla
10-10-2010 7:47 PM


I am trying to get scientists to accept {a definition of God} is a potential. ...

OK, just exactly what are you trying to get them to accept? And exactly why are you trying to get them to accept that? And what do you expect them to then do with it?

We've read the Wedge Document. We know that ID's goal is to transform science into a design-based science. Why?

Because a design-based science would work much better? No, we know that that cannot be, because there is no known way for a design-based science to be able to function. I started a topic asking for a description of the methodology for a supernatural-based science to operate -- you are, after all, talking about the supernatural, aren't you? After more than 200 messages, not one single description of a methodology for a science employing supernaturalistic-based hypotheses. Not one. Similarly, both I and others have repeatedly asked ID supporters for a methodology for identifying design. The individual who started this very thread, Dawn Bertot, has adamantly refused to even begin to address that most fundamental question about ID. As far as I can tell, even the founders and leading writers of ID have avoided answering or even addressing that most fundamental question about ID -- if they ever had, then their followers here would have known about it and would have presented that in response, but they never would.

Instead, isn't the real reason for trying to transform science purely ideological and religious? Are you also intent on destroying science for an ideology? Because, while science is one of the most successful human endeavors in human history, a design-based science cannot possibly continue to function and thus ID's planned transformation of science will in fact destroy science. It would be like adopting the ideology that gasoline engines must run on water, but without ever giving anybody any hint at all as to how that could possibly be accomplished. Would you be willing to ride on an airplane that takes off on a tank of aviation fuel and then in mid-flight switches to water? Why not?

And why adopt the ID ideology at all? The IDists and the Wedge Document both harp on the spread of materialism and the need to fight and reverse that spread, but they don't know what they are talking about. There is indeed philosophical materialism which is pretty much what they describe, but then they claim that that is what science is based on. That is completely and utterly false! Instead, science employs methodological materialism, which is very different from philosophical materialism.

You claimed:

And {scientists} have decided God is a religious aspect and not relevant to science even if true.

Again, that is completely and utterly false! The real reason why they don't include God or any other of the gods or the supernatural is the very simple and purely practical that there exists no methodology for including God, gods, or the supernatural in science. IOW, there exists no known way to observe, measure, detect, or even determine the very existence of the supernatural. To put it into the simplest practical terms: there exists no way that science can work with the supernatural. Hence, science must employ methodology based on that which we are able to observe, measure, detect, etc, AKA methodological materialism. Science does not and cannot make any statement about the possible existence of God nor any of the rest of the supernatural, but rather science is simply stating the simple and direct fact that science simply cannot deal with the supernatural. Period. Nor can science possibly disprove the existence of God nor does it want to ... only "creation science" has been able to offer proof that God does not exist.

Contrary to that, the leading IDists insist that science is based on philosophical materialism, whereas in fact science is of complete necessity based on methodological materialism. This means one of two things (feel free to offer other possibilities):
1. The leading IDists don't know what they are talking about.
or
2. They are lying to you.

Not that the two options are mutually exclusive.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 7:47 PM tesla has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-16-2010 8:15 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 102 of 153 (587054)
10-16-2010 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Percy
10-12-2010 9:41 PM


Re: What experiments?
Your objection makes no sense. I think you might have misunderstood the point about the potential for confusion when one is unclear about which meaning of the term evolution one is using.

Since this is your thread, why don't you resume participation.

No, I am not confused about the meaning of anything. What I am wanting us to do is, discuss what is and should be acceptable from a LOGICAL stndpoint, as evidence, that which is to be believed and taught in the classroom, concerning origins physical reality itself

Now whether, this needs to be discussed in some science forum or cosmology forum ( I really dont see the difference, because both will eventually get to the essential question, what we can really know) I really dont give a rats behind.

Just let me know so I can start the thread, with the verbage and ideas that I am trying to advance

if this is concept is not science (in your view), then for heavens sake, let me know where it could be discussed

Thanks

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Percy, posted 10-12-2010 9:41 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Percy, posted 10-16-2010 8:11 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18875
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 103 of 153 (587077)
10-16-2010 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Dawn Bertot
10-16-2010 4:33 PM


Re: What experiments?
Hi Dawn Bertot,

Tesla was confusing two different definitions of the word evolution. I suggested to Tesla that it is important to be clear about which definition he means.

You, on the other hand, are somehow interpreting that as saying something about the topic and what can be discussed. It is not.

My suggestion to you is that if you want to discuss the topic then you should start posting messages about the topic. After all, this is your thread.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-16-2010 4:33 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 104 of 153 (587079)
10-16-2010 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by dwise1
10-14-2010 2:14 AM


To put it into the simplest practical terms: there exists no way that science can work with the supernatural. Hence, science must employ methodology based on that which we are able to observe, measure, detect, etc, AKA methodological materialism. Science does not and cannot make any statement about the possible existence of God nor any of the rest of the supernatural

Could not agree more. We however can observe the available evidence and coupled with reason make an informed decision, that design is a real possibility.

Evolution makes and employes all the same educated guesses as to why it operates the way it does, with conclusions taught from those observations

change, natural selection, etc are not answers, they are observations, the same as design, whic observes ORDER and LAWS

We are on equal playing field. Only arrogance would assumeone is science and the other is not.

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by dwise1, posted 10-14-2010 2:14 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Coyote, posted 10-16-2010 8:44 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 10-16-2010 8:54 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 105 of 153 (587084)
10-16-2010 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Dawn Bertot
10-16-2010 8:15 PM


Evidence
change, natural selection, etc are not answers, they are observations, the same as design, whic observes ORDER and LAWS

We are on equal playing field. Only arrogance would assumeone is science and the other is not.


We have evidence for change, natural selection, etc. in science.

We do not have evidence for "design." We can't even get creationists to come up with definitions and criteria to differentiate design from non-design. The best we have seen is "I know it when I see it." That's not science.

Face it, the whole ID movement is religion with the serial numbers filed off in hope of fooling the school boards and the courts.

Hasn't worked out too well, has it?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-16-2010 8:15 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-16-2010 8:54 PM Coyote has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18875
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 106 of 153 (587087)
10-16-2010 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Dawn Bertot
10-16-2010 8:15 PM


Dawn Bertot writes:

change, natural selection, etc are not answers, they are observations, the same as design, whic observes ORDER and LAWS

So you're saying that order is evidence of design. What is an example of the kind of order you're thinking about. Is a crystalline structure evidence of design?

You're also saying that laws of nature are evidence of design. What is an example of the kind of law you're thinking about? Is the law of gravity evidence of design?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-16-2010 8:15 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by jar, posted 10-16-2010 9:06 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 115 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-16-2010 11:27 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 107 of 153 (587089)
10-16-2010 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Coyote
10-16-2010 8:44 PM


Re: Evidence
We have evidence for change, natural selection, etc. in science.
We do not have evidence for "design." We can't even get creationists to come up with definitions and criteria to differentiate design from non-design. The best we have seen is "I know it when I see it." That's not science.

Face it, the whole ID movement is religion with the serial numbers filed off in hope of fooling the school boards and the courts.

Hasn't worked out too well, has it?

And i have evidence of order
Its not simply a matter of design. Design is the conclusion, the same way an eternal existence of mattter is the conclusion of Evo, wehther you ackowledge it or not. You observe change and I observe order, both are science

We are are on the same playing field as evidence goes. Ithas nothing to do with religion, so yes it is going just fine.

Testa and others are on the right track, they just dont know how to pin your ears to the wall, I do


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Coyote, posted 10-16-2010 8:44 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 10-16-2010 9:02 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 109 by Panda, posted 10-16-2010 9:04 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 111 by hooah212002, posted 10-16-2010 9:08 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 112 by Coyote, posted 10-16-2010 9:26 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 114 by nwr, posted 10-16-2010 10:24 PM Dawn Bertot 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