1541 replies to this topic

[IrishAidan07]

Quote

My apologies but I did not see a link to any evidence? Would you be so kind as to repost it please?

Certainly. This Site Explains The I.D. Position Rather Well

Quote

Please note that complexity is NOT evidence of a designer, it is only evidence of ... complexity. Complexity does not require intelligent design and to declare that, because something is complex it must have been designed by some agency other than natural ones (such as Natural Selection, feedback etc) is false logic.

Well, like I said, that Website explains it rather well. It also explains why other sciences that rely on detection are considered science an I.D. is not: because of its metaphysical implications.

[Leonardo]

They're Here on Sep 15 2008, 01:16 PM, said:

If that is the case, then I conclude that Science is fundamentally flawed and it requires a disclaimer be taught alongside it. You did not answer my question:

If it is true that aliens created our DNA then sent it here by means of directed panspermia, then why are we teaching the lie of abiogenesis to the exclusion of all other hypotheses?

If this is your question, then it is loaded and I cannot answer it. There is no evidence for aliens so I am not going to acknowledge your assumption. There is no evidence abiogenesis is a lie so I am not going to provide you with a statement you can misquote or otherwise render useful for your pov.

Quote

You only call it unscientific because you can't fathom a means of testing for it. That doesn't mean it's unscientific, it just means we haven't acquired the right knowledge yet, or we don't have the right technology yet, or we just haven't looked hard enough.

If there is no means by which to test something then any premise(s) based on it are unscientific - regardless of whether we assume that, in the future, there may be such a means of testing. If we do find a means to test God then I will gladly retreat from my current position.

Quote

No, but there would be intelligence behind the machine.

Another intelligent machine perhaps?

I ask again, have you any proof that the designer speculated upon in either ID or Creationism is/was alive?

If not, then how can you oppose abiogenesis (life from non-life) given that it is a possibility in both beliefs (ID and Creationism)?

Science will not and cannot teach what cannot be tested and/or has no evidence supporting it. ID and Creationism cannot be tested and have no evidence to support them. They could be taught as beliefs, but not as science.

[IrishAidan07]

Leonardo, please explain something to me:

First, are you familiar with Freudian Psychology?

If so, why is it taught as science in our schools? Certainly it cannot be proven. There is no empirical evidence for it. It cannot be tested.

Secondly, why is the BBT, given that it cannot be proven, dis proven, or tested taught in our schools as science?

It just seems to me that anything that does not involve a supreme being and investigated in much the same way as I.D. is considered science. I think people are afraid of the metaphysical implications and that is why it is not taught as science. Hell, it isn't even taught in most schools.

Edited by IrishAidan, 15 September 2008 - 02:40 PM.

[Leonardo]

IrishAidan on Sep 15 2008, 03:23 PM, said:

Certainly. This Site Explains The I.D. Position Rather Well



Well, like I said, that Website explains it rather well. It also explains why other sciences that rely on detection are considered science an I.D. is not: because of its metaphysical implications.

Thanks for reposting the link.

From the site:

Quote

Machines, as defined by French Biochemist and Nobel Laureate Jacques Lucien Monod (1910-1976), are "purposeful aggregates of matter that, utilizing energy, perform specific tasks." By this authoritative definition, living systems are recognized as machines.

Which is incorrect. The author is assuming a purpose (or designer) behind the aggregation of matter into living organisms (beyond simple survival and reproduction). This 'evidence' presupposes the existence of a designer so is not evidence at all.

We cannot state that biological organisms fit this definition of a machine other than that they are aggregates, utilise energy and perform tasks. Purpose should not be included in any definition.

The quote from George Wald is out of date as we have a 3rd option for the origin of life (abiogensis).

Lastly, one doesn't seek evidence to validate a Theory (in science), one builds a Theory based on the available evidence.

I find the site to be heavily biased and rather misleading in how it describes and defines the terms used. In my opinion, there is no evidence there, only speculation and belief.

[IrishAidan07]

Quote

In my opinion, there is no evidence there, only speculation and belief.

I disagree. I think it draws conclusions because, as I noted earlier, even Darwin thought that certain systems being developed by pure chance (natural selection) was outrageous. It is a scientific disagreement that Darwin himself observed and admitted to. It relies on the science of design detection, which many other sciences rely on.

Edited by IrishAidan, 15 September 2008 - 02:44 PM.

[Leonardo]

IrishAidan on Sep 15 2008, 03:38 PM, said:

Leonardo, please explain something to me:

First, are you familiar with Freudian Psychology?

If so, why is it taught as science in our schools? Certainly it cannot be proven. There is no empirical evidence for it. It cannot be tested.

Secondly, why is the BBT, given that it cannot be proven, dis proven, or tested taught in our schools as science?

It just seems to me that anything that does not involve a supreme being and investigated in much the same way as I.D. is considered science. I think people are afraid of the metaphysical implications and that is why it is not taught as science. Hell, it isn't even taught in most schools.

Psychology can be tested (on us), and Freudian Psychology has evidence supporting it (although I am not necessarily advocating Freud was right).

We can observe reactions, both in our external physiology, through emotive expression and through new scanning and imaging techniques, to situations designed to provoke them and conclude the validity of at least some of Freud's work.

How do forensic scientists 'prove' someone was at the scene of a crime if there were no witnesses and no recording of the crime?

Thus it is with cosmologists/astronomers and other physicists and the BBT. They can observe the effects of the event on the surroundings and work backwards to a conclusion. As I have stated before, there are other Theories in opposition to BBT, but all of them have evidence supporting them (it's just that the BBT has more and this evidence is more conclusive). Evidence is why natural things (like BBT and Evolution) are taught in science, lack of evidence is why supernatural things (like ID and Creationism) aren't.

[IrishAidan07]

Quote

Psychology can be tested (on us), and Freudian Psychology has evidence supporting it (although I am not necessarily advocating Freud was right).

Very little evidence, if any. Infantile Sexuality, for example, has almost no evidence supporting it. Carl Jung, for example, completely disagreed with Freud, despite being a protege of his early on.

Quote

Thus it is with cosmologists/astronomers and other physicists and the BBT. They can observe the effects of the event on the surroundings and work backwards to a conclusion. As I have stated before, there are other Theories in opposition to BBT, but all of them have evidence supporting them (it's just that the BBT has more and this evidence is more conclusive). Evidence is why natural things (like BBT and Evolution) are taught in science, lack of evidence is why supernatural things (like ID and Creationism) aren't.

Very little evidence that can mean a hundred different things. I think the same goes for I.D. Design detection, which is a science, is the evidence they use to support their theory. Does that mean naturual selection isn't the reason for all the complexities? No, it doesn't. Natural Selection, could, in fact, be the answer. But we don't know for certain. Just like we don't know that the BBT is right and the opposing theories you alluded to are not. Again, the only reason it is considered a non-science in this case is because of the metaphysical implications. That's what I believe.

BTW, I am a huge fan of Freud - and while there is hardly any evidence to support his theories - because there really can't be - I happen to agree with many of them. I must have read his biography about ten times.

Edited by IrishAidan, 15 September 2008 - 03:04 PM.

[annmariet]

IrishAidan on Sep 15 2008, 12:06 AM, said:

Deduce that the best explanation is an Intelligent Designer

How could you experiment on something that is in part scientific and in part philosophical?

You can't. But that doesn't negate the first two steps.

Um, yes it does. Science has to have all three steps to be valid - Since you have said you can't experiment on this idea, then obviously it is not science. It is philosophy. You cannot change the rules of science just to fit what you want to be science. You can want it all day long, doesn't make it so. So this whole argument is moot based on your own statement.

Definition of Scientific method:
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[IrishAidan07]

annmariet on Sep 15 2008, 11:11 AM, said:

Um, yes it does. Science has to have all three steps to be valid - Since you have said you can't experiment on this idea, then obviously it is not science. It is philosophy. You cannot change the rules of science just to fit what you want to be science. You can want it all day long, doesn't make it so. So this whole argument is moot based on your own statement.

Definition of Scientific method:
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

I addressed this already. There are lots of sciences that cannot be proven, dis proven, or tested - yet we still teach them.

Edited by IrishAidan, 15 September 2008 - 03:14 PM.

[annmariet]

IrishAidan on Sep 15 2008, 11:14 AM, said:

I addressed this already. There are lots of sciences that cannot be proven, dis proven, or tested - yet we still teach them.

and you think this is ok when you WANT that to be taught, but not when YOU don't?? And from what I have read, the only people who think these sciences can't be proven are creationists and IDists, not scientists.  So you didn't really address the reality of the situation at all, just how you want things to work to support your viewpoint on how to make a non-science a science.  Nice work!

[IrishAidan07]

annmariet on Sep 15 2008, 11:20 AM, said:

and you think this is ok when you WANT that to be taught, but not when YOU don't?? And from what I have read, the only people who think these sciences can't be proven are creationists and IDists, not scientists.  So you didn't really address the reality of the situation at all, just how you want things to work to support your viewpoint on how to make a non-science a science.  Nice work!

If someone can explain how the BBT can be proven, I'll recant. Or if someone can show me irrefutable evidence for the BBT that is specific to that theory and only that theory, I'll recant. If someone can explain to me how design detection is not a science, even though it is used in numerous other fields of science, I'll recant. But alas, you can't so I, therefore, will not recant!

Clearly you don't read the right stuff.

To be honest, I'm done with this argument. It's becoming monotonous. I have my convictions, you have yours. If someone wants to debate this further, I'll do a one-on-one debate when those threads are opened back up.

Edited by IrishAidan, 15 September 2008 - 03:27 PM.

[annmariet]

IrishAidan on Sep 15 2008, 11:23 AM, said:

If someone can explain how the BBT can be proven, I'll recant. Or if someone can show me irrefutable evidence for the BBT that is specific to that theory and only that theory, I'll recant. If someone can explain to me how design detection is not a science, even though it is used in numerous other fields of science, I'll recant. But alas, you can't so I, therefore, will not recant!

Clearly you don't read the right stuff.

To be honest, I'm done with this argument. It's becoming monotonous. I have my convictions, you have yours. If someone wants to debate this further, I'll do a one-on-one debate when those threads are opened back up.

I can read - believe me, and I know what the right thing to read is. I actually have an education in this field, and while you like to pretend you know what you are talking about, the moment you followed the usual argument structure from "evolution is not true, to look at the eye, and then involve unrelated theories", it became obvious to me that you are just reciting other people's thoughts.  I see no reason why anyone would continue this debate with you when you are just reciting the same old arguments with the same "la la la I don't hear you" responses.

ID is not science. End of story.

[IrishAidan07]

annmariet on Sep 15 2008, 11:35 AM, said:

I can read - believe me, and I know what the right thing to read is. I actually have an education in this field, and while you like to pretend you know what you are talking about, the moment you followed the usual argument structure from "evolution is not true, to look at the eye, and then involve unrelated theories", it became obvious to me that you are just reciting other people's thoughts.  I see no reason why anyone would continue this debate with you when you are just reciting the same old arguments with the same "la la la I don't hear you" responses.

ID is not science. End of story.

You just proved you can't read, Suh. I never said Evolution wasn't true. As for the eye thing, it is a common argument of I.D., just like Evolution has its common arguments. And I respond to everything presented to me - you either disagree or ignore the responses. Much like you did my last statement. You responded to only one part of it, the part which could close out your part in this debate. Silly.

Now, again, debate me one-on-one if you want to continue this.

Edited by IrishAidan, 15 September 2008 - 03:52 PM.

[Doug1o29]

Rosencrantz on Sep 15 2008, 07:43 AM, said:

I don't know what planet you are from, but in the realm of science, for which I am a future member of, you won't be taken seriously from posting website links from...

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

amongst others.

The Big Bang has 'little' evidence for it? Please do yourself a favor, enroll in a college of your choice and take an intro to astrophysics class. Then you can come back to discuss things here.

The same goes for your assertion that I.D. is not creationism with a masque. Please, get a formal education instead of meandering around the internet. Take a philosophy of science course and perhaps then you will have enough information to enter in a debate. Fortunately for you, very little people on this board have such an education to hold your claims suspect.

And I did look at your links. Is that honestly your defense? Also, your use of diction suggest you are under the impression that Johnson is a member of the scientific community. In fact, every single thing Johnson has ever said in regards to science in his literary works is incorrect and distorted. If you don't believe me, ask any biologist at a given research university.

Several thoughts here:
1.  The Big Bang is not part of evolution.  Evolution can occur whether the Big Bang is right or wrong.  It does not refute or confirm creationism.  It is simply irrelevant.

The Big Bang is a mathematical construct that describes our universe.  It calls for 17 variables, but has data for only 14.  That alone should tell us that Big Bang theory has not reached its final form.  There are changes ahead.  We might want to put off rabid rejections of the Big Bang until we all find out what it really says.  That way, we will all have fewer words to eat (If the theory proves to be untenable, scientists themselves will trash it for you.).

2.  ID has a fatal flaw:  it admits taht evolution will work given enough time:  by DesCartes' Law, enough incremental changes will eventually produce ANY possible outcome.  How do you prove that there has been enough time?  As of now, you can't.  But:  ID says that evolution, directed by "an intelligence" was the agency by which life was created.  Once the ID folks admit that there has been enough time for ID to work, they simultaneously admit there has been enough time for undirected evolution to work.

And that brings up another problem:  evolution is DIRECTED by the environment and various forms of natural selection.  It is NOT a random process.  And that throws all the probability calculations on the trash heap:  they do not take the lack of randomness into account.

If any creationists reading this, actually know scientists who reject evolution, please send me their contact information.  I would like to talk with them.
Doug

[They're Here]

Leonardo on Sep 15 2008, 10:28 AM, said:

If this is your question, then it is loaded and I cannot answer it. There is no evidence for aliens so I am not going to acknowledge your assumption. There is no evidence abiogenesis is a lie so I am not going to provide you with a statement you can misquote or otherwise render useful for your pov.

It's not a loaded question. A loaded question is: "Are you still beating your wife?" A yes or no answer would imply that the person who answers it has beaten his wife. My question had no yes or no answer and never asked you to confirm or deny anything. In fact, it was only a request for you to look at the large gaping hole in the practice of science education rationally.

The same question could be asked of churches, if abiogenesis were true, why are you teaching the lie of Christianity to the exclusion of other theories? However, the major difference is that Science is required learning and church is optional. So I would still like you to think through the implications of my question. You have a right to refuse of course, it's your choice.

Leonardo on Sep 15 2008, 10:28 AM, said:

I ask again, have you any proof that the designer speculated upon in either ID or Creationism is/was alive?

If not, then how can you oppose abiogenesis (life from non-life) given that it is a possibility in both beliefs (ID and Creationism)?

Science will not and cannot teach what cannot be tested and/or has no evidence supporting it. ID and Creationism cannot be tested and have no evidence to support them. They could be taught as beliefs, but not as science.

I never opposed abiogenesis. I have no interest in withholding knowledge from anyone. I feel strongly that people should be given the full extent of possibilities so they can recognize evidence when they come across it or someone can test for it when they have the means. Science has no such morals and feels content to stonewall progress and intellectual thought. Science makes itself an authority on matters, but makes no attempt to disclose that there are certain possibilities it has no methodology to test for.