The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY

Okay, so you're saying that sufficient evidence would indicate that a function actually had a purpose that was constructed with intent. Given that this thread is about the evidence for a design and a designer, can you provide an example of some function for which you have evidence of purpose and intent, and can you describe that evidence?--Percy

The people may be motivated but they're motivated not to look at the evidence. If they already know the weather by their "logic", why would they spoil it by looking out the window at reality?

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Not particularly. But this topic is about design, if you want to persuade me design has more going for it than evolution you're going to need to do more than you've done. If you want to discuss the support for evolution we can do that in another thread. I had a thread, Confidence in evolutionary science two years ago that I put aside for this kind of thing, you entered it only to say you weren't interested in discussing it. If you now want to talk about it, feel free to return to that discussion. The last message I posted to you is Message 17 and you didn't reply. I've not met many evolutionary biologists that accept the existence of the Yeti. I'd have thought "The Yeti is a piece of folklore" would have been true. Nonsense. The theory that all life shares common ancestor for instance can be easily falsified within a handful of years.There exists significantly more genetic tests that could take place than have in fact taken place. Genetic tests are getting cheaper and quicker. It is feasible that between now and 5/10 years from now we will have performed more genetic tests than we've ever performed.If every single one of those contravened evolutionary expectations, I would regard that as a pretty rigorous falsification. So far, your theory
a) is unfalsifiable.
b) has no evidence that can set it apart from falsifialbe theories.
c) has an absence of logic.You keep talking about logic, but you've yet to demonstrate anything that might be considered a formal logical argument. Maybe you should work on rectifying these problems before claiming that it is on equal scientific footing with a falsifiable theory that has a narrow range of possible confirmatory evidence and a wide range of potential falsifiable evidence built on mathematics, iterative algorithms, game theory and other logic.

Ah, I forgot this topic was supposed to be about ID and not Evolution. As a result, I responded to him about the first quote. Funny how everytime IDer discuss ID, they have to bring up Evolution and make a debate about it. If they truly believed ID was a scientific theory, it shouldn't be happening.Edited by Son, : No reason given.

You mean actually do science by verifying their conclusions against the evidence? Heaven forbid! (quite literally in their case)Again, this story which was attributed to an essay by Carl Sagan:

quote:

---

The Physicist and the Metaphysicist

​

In the 1920s, there was a dinner at which the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to a toast. This was a time when people stood up, made a toast, and then selected someone to respond. Nobody knew what toast they'd be asked to reply to, so it was a challenge for the quick-witted. In this case the toast was: "To physics and metaphysics." Now by metaphysics was meant something like philosophy -- truths that you could get to just by thinking about them. Wood took a second, glanced about him, and answered along these lines: The physicist has an idea, he said. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it makes to him. He goes to the scientific literature, and the more he reads, the more promising the idea seems. Thus prepared, he devises an experiment to test the idea. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are eliminated or taken into account; the accuracy of the measurement is refined. At the end of all this work, the experiment is completed and ... the idea is shown to be worthless. The physicist then discards the idea, frees his mind (as I was saying a moment ago) from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else.

​

The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded, is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory.

---

Another example of arriving at conclusions solely by logic is theology, none of whose conclusions can be verified. As long as ID has nothing but logic to offer and absolutely no effective methodology for detecting and determining design or for incorporating design in science, then it can never be the equal of science, but rather merely another form of theology.Nearly 600 messages and no such methodology has been offered by its most vociferous -- albeit incomprehensible -- proponent here, despite repeated requests and pleas that the methodology be presented. Still appears that no such methodology exists. And that ID quite obviously does not belong in the science classroom, except as a bad example so that the students can learn to distinguish pseudo-science from science.Edited by dwise1, : "You mean"

i dont think they are quite as elusive as the Yettii believe those are the same people that are still here getting free things from the government correct. i think the economy will go extinct before they do. I have nothing against indians, I just dont think people should get things free because thier ancestors were involved in this or thatBy that reasoning I should be in jail because of Musalini, if that is how you spell his name. enough is enough, get over it and move onWhile those indians back then suffered great indignities, those today are just riding the gravy trainEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

only someone that understands nothing or very little of sound reasoning would make such a silly comment. the principle of design is sound in both logic and reality. It has eluded you because you understand only a contrived method of evaluation called the scientific method, which closes its eyes to reason and its own limitations concerning evidence.You understand nothing and your lame approvals and reqiriments are not necessary for it to be validDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

A rant is not a rebuttal.

Nobody here is making an appeal to anything, but logic and reality. You fellas simply dont understand that you are limited to what we have in reality. Evolution explains nothing concerning the origins of things. even if it were true in all its parts, it would have nothing to do with what we are left with in reality. it would not mean that things were not designed to operate in that fashionthe same way the genesis planet where a dead moon was transformed into a living planet a designerFor heavens sake fellas this is not rocket science.All we are left with is the logical deductions of reality, order, pourpose, natural selection, change amd design all of which is allowable in the present information.Your approval is not necessary for this to be completely valid and logical as evidence. if you dont like it refute its conclusionDawn BertotAt the end of the day and when all the smoke clears, this is all thats leftEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

A rant is all that is required to respond to a rant, correct?Possibly you could offer something of value

For a hundred posts you have tried to communicate your idea, and in the end you have failed.You claim "the principle of design is sound in both logic and reality" but you have been unable to suggest how to differentiate what is designed from what is not. There is no method to your method, and certainly no scientific rigor.When asked for clarification you resort to a word salad that gets us farther from understanding your point. What we can understand of your posts suggests that you have no valid point at all.You rail against the scientific method but have proposed nothing better to replace it. Rather you seem to want to replace science and the scientific method with something which appears to be the exact opposite: no rules required. It seems that in your "science" if you believe in something hard enough you can make it so. If you can't convince scientists of the validity of your method, perhaps it is you who lacks understanding.Edited by Coyote, : Grammar

---

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

Your style was described by an antecdote in my logic textbook. A trial attorney is handed his briefs for the case he is about to argue. It simply tells him: "We have no case. Attack the opposing attorney."This topic, your own topic, is for presenting the evidence for design and a designer. Nearly 600 messages and you nor anyone else has presented a single shread of evidence. You have also resisted presenting any kind of methodology for objectively detecting or determining design, something that is absolutely essential to be able to do if we are to be expected to incorporate design into science.As much as you may hate the scientific method, that is the methodology of science and it is highly successful. In the science classroom, the scientific method is a very necessary part of the curriculum. You want to rid science of the scientific method and offer nothing whatsoever to replace it with? What you are trying to push as being on a par with science is instead the opposite of science. The closed thing that ID is on a par with is theology, though the logical rigeur of theology far exceeds that of ID, whose main use of logic is in its efforts to sway public opinion to help it destroy science.In order for ID to qualify as science, it must do as Son had described. And for it to even begin to do that, it must have a methodology for detecting and determining design.So just where is that methodology? You don't have one, do you? That means that you do not have a case. Undoubtedly, your response will yet again be a textbook case.

--PercyThe eye is ordered, its puropse is to allow sight to manuver. its intent by its creator was so that its creation would not bump into things or fall off clifts, step on snakes, or grab the wrong wifedid I miss your pointDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Since people do in fact do all these things, may we conclude that the creator was a failure?

Are you implying that only humans were created with eyes? What about naturally blind animals?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.