tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post1151313961879527297..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Atheism's (Not So) Hidden AssumptionsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger226125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48015802714333656922010-07-11T09:32:47.670-07:002010-07-11T09:32:47.670-07:00Fil -
Ummm, no. Think of it more like this:
Law...Fil - <br /><br />Ummm, no. Think of it more like this:<br /><br />Laws tell you WHAT happens. Theories tell you HOW they happen.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84785026588950271982010-07-10T10:40:58.567-07:002010-07-10T10:40:58.567-07:00There is a distinct difference between a law and a...<b>There is a distinct difference between a law and a theory. For example, there is a theory of gravity and a law of gravity.<br /><br />It seems you think a hypothesis gets promoted into a theory, which may then get promoted into a law. But such is not that case<br /><br />Perhaps this link will help. Though not from a scientific scource, I think this is pretty accurate:<br /><br />http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm </b><br /><br />So the theory is that the law is wrong?Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45164418448015687902010-07-09T18:35:44.439-07:002010-07-09T18:35:44.439-07:00Fil -
They why does science call it a Law? Why ...Fil - <br /><br /><b><br />They why does science call it a Law? Why not change it to theory?<br /></b><br /><br />There is a distinct difference between a law and a theory. For example, there is a theory of gravity and a law of gravity.<br /><br />It seems you think a hypothesis gets promoted into a theory, which may then get promoted into a law. But such is not that case<br /><br />Perhaps this link will help. Though not from a scientific scource, I think this is pretty accurate:<br /><br />http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htmRitchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70650895018567040632010-07-08T14:42:10.624-07:002010-07-08T14:42:10.624-07:00You're so worried that the promises of an eter...<b>You're so worried that the promises of an eternal life are untrue, better stick your fingers in your ears and sing lalalala.</b><br /><br />Thank you for knowing me so well. I sit in my basement and wait for all goodness to enrapture me and sadly don't have a real life like I'm sure you do.Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23962383285046299772010-07-08T13:26:50.905-07:002010-07-08T13:26:50.905-07:00Fil:
"They why does science call it [the Law...Fil:<br /><br />"They why does science call it [the Law of Biogenesis] a Law? Why not change it to theory?"<br /><br />Pasteur apparently called it that, not "science". It's just a name. Pasteur basically found that isolated sterilized broth doesn't contain any life after a certain waiting time. Which has nothing to do with abiogenesis. <br /><br />"The last is regarding hydrothermal vents. I'm sure that will turn out to be a dead end"<br /><br />Of course you are sure. You are a dogmatist. You're so worried that the promises of an eternal life are untrue, better stick your fingers in your ears and sing lalalala.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-371363943709190732010-07-08T12:19:13.082-07:002010-07-08T12:19:13.082-07:00But it does violate the Law of Biogenesis.
Yes i...<b>But it does violate the Law of Biogenesis.<br /><br /><br />Yes it does. But so what? Maybe this law is wrong. The vast majority of biologists believe it to be the case.</b><br /><br />They why does science call it a Law? Why not change it to theory?<br /><br />I looked at those links. The first two are regarding amino acids from outer space. Are you saying that renders abiogenesis moot?<br /><br />The last is regarding hydrothermal vents. I'm sure that will turn out to be a dead end but the scientists will have to try and determine that.Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90740164648782488612010-07-07T01:24:42.074-07:002010-07-07T01:24:42.074-07:00Fil -
No, I'm sure at some point it just ex...Fil - <br /><br /><b><br />No, I'm sure at some point it just exploded into existance.<br /></b><br /><br />Cute. Yes, maybe that is exactly it. It just appeared. It was a miracle. Because, you know, they happen...<br /><br /><b><br />But it does violate the Law of Biogenesis.<br /></b><br /><br />Yes it does. But so what? Maybe this law is wrong. The vast majority of biologists believe it to be the case.<br /><br /><b><br />Ritchie, please don't insult my intelligence by referring to that crap. <br /></b><br /><br />My point is that actual research into abiogenesis is being done, and has been for a long time. Whatever your thoughts on the validity of this particular experiment (and they apparently aren't particularly rosey), it is an example of scientists doing what scientists should - some damn work! Experiments!<br /><br /><b><br />I really don't know! I'm not in their 'camp' so to speak and have an in on all things 'they' are doing. <br /></b><br /><br />I am keenly interested in this topic and can tell you that despite the ID movement's insistence that it is doing 'science', the actual tangible scientific output by advocates of, or which simply supports, ID, is absolutely negligible. Seriously, embarrassingly small! The leading lights of the ID movement have come up with fewer scientific articles collectively than a real scientist comes up with in a matter of months. All this despite the fact that the ID movement has many people keen to be SEEN TO BE DOING science, and has enough money behind it to make an emporer blush. <br /><br />Have a guess why that is.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62429796672173744182010-07-06T17:57:32.627-07:002010-07-06T17:57:32.627-07:00My house is standing these days - does that give m...<b> My house is standing these days - does that give me reason to think it has ALWAYS stood?</b><br /><br />No, I'm sure at some point it just exploded into existance.<br /><br /><b>Nor is our inability to explain exactly how life on Earth first appeared from non-living organic chemicals evidence against it happening.</b><br /><br />But it does violate the Law of Biogenesis.<br /><br /><b>such as the famous Miller-Urey experiment, and these:</b><br /><br />Ritchie, please don't insult my intelligence by referring to that crap. The other links i'll get to looking at.<br /><br /><b>What exactly are ID advocates testing? How is the research into their ideas going? Who exactly is 'working on it' on their side? </b><br /><br />I really don't know! I'm not in their 'camp' so to speak and have an in on all things 'they' are doing.Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71052040363738107772010-07-06T10:33:06.503-07:002010-07-06T10:33:06.503-07:00Fil -
Once science can make life from non-life ...Fil - <br /><br /><b><br />Once science can make life from non-life get back to me. Until then everything in our entire sphere of knowledge about life shows that it came from previous life.<br /></b><br /><br />troy has a point. Just because there is life these days gives us no reason to think there was ALWAYS life. My house is standing these days - does that give me reason to think it has ALWAYS stood?<br /><br /><b><br />Your not being able to explain how life appeared on earth is not an explanation against previous life.<br /></b><br /><br />Nor is our inability to explain exactly how life on Earth first appeared from non-living organic chemicals evidence against it happening.<br /><br /><b><br />If it appeared from non-life you need to demonstrate the feasability, or even possibility of that. You too require an explanation for your position. You need to falsify the Law of Biogenesis. <br /></b><br /><br />And that is exactly what scientists are doing at the moment. Real scientists are proposing and testing hypotheses and developing theories even as we speak, such as the famous Miller-Urey experiment, and these:<br /><br />http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031104064412.htm<br /><br />http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/Frontiers/2002/b8excell.html<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_vent#Hydrothermal_origin_of_life<br /><br />What exactly are ID advocates <b>testing</b>? How is the research into their ideas going? Who exactly is 'working on it' on their side?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20095475664552573452010-07-06T10:20:04.978-07:002010-07-06T10:20:04.978-07:00Joe G -
of course there is!
If there is, you ...Joe G - <br /><br /><b><br />of course there is!<br /></b><br /><br />If there is, you and every other ID advocate I have ever met have certainly failed to produce such evidence.<br /><br /><b><br />That doesn't mean humans did it.<br /></b><br /><br />Not conclusively. But they are excellent candidates. We do not infer the supernatural, unlike ID.<br /><br /><b><br />The design Ritchie, not the designer.<br /><br />ID is about the design.<br /></b><br /><br />No, Joe, it is about the designer. Let's just face that little fact right now. You cannot have a design without a designer. You just can't. The reason ID advocates do not want to FOCUS on the designer, is because they don't want to make it obvious that ID is dressed-up Creationism, which it clearly is anyway. So they say 'it's about the design' when the whole concept of design rests on the assumption of a designer.<br /><br /><b><br />And as soon as you or anyone else demonstrates that blind, undirected processes can account for things ID says are designed then ID falls.<br /></b><br /><br />As soon as you demonstrate there is a single trace of design in nature, ID becomes credible. Until then, it isn't.<br /><br /><b><br />Science doesn't make those assumptions because then it may miss reality.<br /></b><br /><br />Science absolutely does make such an assumption! If you do not think so, then you are simply ignorant of science and how it works.<br /><br />Again, yes, maybe it would 'miss reality'. If something supernatural does exist, science has no way to recognise it as such. That doesn't mean the supernatural doesn't exist - just that it must lie beyond the boundaries of science.<br /><br /><b><br />The design is material. And science does not have procede as though everything is reducible to matter and energy.<br /></b><br /><br />That is precisely how it DOES proceed.<br /><br /><b><br />It didn't take a miracle to design and build my car.<br /><br />But nature, operating freely couldn't do it.<br /></b><br /><br />Irrelevant. If you are a scientist and also allow that miracles happen, then you have no reason to assume a miracle did not interfere with your experiments, and you cannot trust your own results. So science comes screeching to a halt.<br /><br /><b><br />Sure they do. They have to know what to transcribe, what to splice and what/ how to translate.<br /><br />Then where the product goes.<br /></b><br /><br />Water does not have to 'know' to go down hill. The planet does not have to 'know' to spin on its axis. They just DO these things - WITHOUT knowledge.<br /><br /><b><br />Muddled "logic".<br /></b><br /><br />Not so. A designer must be more complex than the designed. And therefore, is less likely than the designed. That's logic.<br /><br /><b><br />It isn't rational because it cannot be objectively tested. <br /></b><br /><br />That's why it's a DEFAULT position...Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27069225297668167432010-07-05T19:07:18.395-07:002010-07-05T19:07:18.395-07:00It therefore seems a reasonable parsimonious defau...<b>It therefore seems a reasonable parsimonious default position that life on earth came from non-live.</b><br /><br />Once science can make life from non-life get back to me. Until then everything in our entire sphere of knowledge about life shows that it came from previous life. Your not being able to explain how life appeared on earth is not an explanation against previous life.<br /><br /><b>If it came from life outside earth, you need to explain where that life came from, and so on. </b> <br /><br />If it appeared from non-life you need to demonstrate the feasability, or even possibility of that. You too require an explanation for your position. You need to falsify the Law of Biogenesis.Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91514360992224196102010-07-05T17:06:10.220-07:002010-07-05T17:06:10.220-07:00troy:
If it came from life outside earth, you need...troy:<br /><i>If it came from life outside earth, you need to explain where that life came from, and so on.</i><br /><br />That is false.<br /><br />We explain what we can. And we don't need all the answers to do that.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45620053391424655802010-07-05T14:36:31.379-07:002010-07-05T14:36:31.379-07:00Fil:
"Assuming life has always come from lif...Fil:<br /><br />"Assuming life has always come from life or life has always existed has to be the default position."<br /><br />No. According to the fossil record, first microbial life on earth appeared around 3.5 billion years ago, when earth was a billion years old. It therefore seems a reasonable parsimonious default position that life on earth came from non-live. If it came from life outside earth, you need to explain where that life came from, and so on.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-92166443937123887522010-07-05T13:57:51.095-07:002010-07-05T13:57:51.095-07:00Ritchie:
But there isn't any evidence for one!...Ritchie:<br /><i>But there isn't any evidence for one!</i><br /><br />of course there is!<br /><br /><br /><b>No one knows who the criminal is until they go through the evidence and archaeologists only "know" minute things about their designers- from the evidence left behind.</b><br /><br /><br /><i>But it is a reasonable starting point that there *were* designers - humans.</i><br /><br />That doesn't mean humans did it.<br /><br />And saying a human did it sez nothing. <br /><br /><i>Don't you see the circular logic? You have to just accept the existence of a great designer for there to be a viable candidate for the 'designer' role.</i><br /><br />The design Ritchie, not the designer.<br /><br />ID is about the design.<br /><br />And as soon as you or anyone else demonstrates that blind, undirected processes can account for things ID says are designed then ID falls.<br /><br />IOW all you have to do is start supporting your position.<br /><br /><i>*I* certainly didn't infer it.</i><br /><br />You made an inference as to what I was saying.<br /><br /><i>You insisted that 'science just cares about reality, nothing more' in response to me informing you that all science must assume naturalism and materialism.</i><br /><br />Science doesn't make those assumptions because then it may miss reality.<br /><br /><i>This, to me, suggests you think that science can progress through non-materialistic means. And you would be wrong in this assumption. It cannot.</i><br /><br />The design is material. And science does not have procede as though everything is reducible to matter and energy.<br /><br /><i>What is the point of doing experiments, let alone repeating them, if materialism is not true? If miracles may occurr to interfere with the results?</i><br /><br />It didn't take a miracle to design and build my car.<br /><br />But nature, operating freely couldn't do it.<br /><br /><b>Everything I linked to requires knowledge to function. Knowledge blind molecules don't have.<br /><br />It is all in the articles you said you read.</b><br /><br /><br /><i>They simply do not. Nothing you have linked to requires knowledge to function. Knowledge is just the only explanation you are willing to attribute to the subjects of these articles.</i><br /><br />Sure they do. They have to know what to transcribe, what to splice and what/ how to translate.<br /><br />Then where the product goes.<br /><br /><b>How is it rational when it cannot even be tested?<br /><br />How is saying we are nothing but an accident, rational?</b><br /><br /><i>Because it is the most likely to be true.</i><br /><br />No evidence for it.<br /><br /><i> Well, any being capable of designing life/the universe, must logically be *capable* of designing life/the universe. It must therefore be more complex than life/the universe. Therefore its existence is less likely than that of life/the universe.</i><br /><br />Muddled "logic".<br /><br />Well natural processes cannot account for the origin of nature because they only exist in nature.<br /><br /><i>It is the entirely rational position which all scientists will take until compelling evidence shows it to be incorrect.</i><br /><br />It isn't rational because it cannot be objectively tested.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20298374759025204692010-07-05T09:37:06.283-07:002010-07-05T09:37:06.283-07:00Assuming life is the result of blind, unguided for...<b>Assuming life is the result of blind, unguided forces is the rational DEFAULT position.<br /></b><br /><br />Assuming life has always come from life or life has always existed <b>has</b> to be the default position. That's where evolutionists begin to equivocate.Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90193749258480954372010-07-05T09:17:46.186-07:002010-07-05T09:17:46.186-07:00Joe G -
Only if tehre evidence for one.
But t...Joe G - <br /><br /><b><br />Only if tehre evidence for one.<br /></b><br /><br />But there isn't any evidence for one!<br /><br /><b><br />Yes it is a valid comparison.<br /><br />No one knows who the criminal is until they go through the evidence and archaeologists only "know" minute things about their designers- from the evidence left behind.<br /></b><br /><br />But it is a reasonable starting point that there *were* designers - humans. We have viable candidates to fill the role of designer. With the life/universe we have no such candidate.<br /><br />Don't you see the circular logic? You have to just accept the existence of a great designer for there to be a viable candidate for the 'designer' role. That's begging the question. And it is a logical fallacy.<br /><br /><b><br />No, you inferred it.<br /><br />Do you not understand the English language? <br /></b><br /><br />*I* certainly didn't infer it. Because I know damn well it isn't true. It's you who doesn't, apparently.<br /><br /><b><br />ME - Whichever is the case, the point is it is not true. Science is NOT the search for truth by ANY means.<br /><br />YOU - I never said nor implied that it was.<br /></b><br /><br />You insisted that 'science just cares about reality, nothing more' in response to me informing you that all science must assume naturalism and materialism. This, to me, suggests you think that science can progress through non-materialistic means. And you would be wrong in this assumption. It cannot.<br /><br /><b><br />Repeatable experiments- science- asking people non-science.<br /></b><br /><br />What is the point of doing experiments, let alone repeating them, if materialism is not true? If miracles may occurr to interfere with the results?<br /><br /><b><br />Everything I linked to requires knowledge to function. Knowledge blind molecules don't have.<br /><br />It is all in the articles you said you read.<br /></b><br /><br />They simply do not. Nothing you have linked to requires knowledge to function. Knowledge is just the only explanation you are willing to attribute to the subjects of these articles.<br /><br /><b><br />How is it rational when it cannot even be tested?<br /><br />How is saying we are nothing but an accident, rational?<br /></b><br /><br />Because it is the most likely to be true.<br /><br />How do we fathom this? Well, any being capable of designing life/the universe, must logically be *capable* of designing life/the universe. It must therefore be more complex than life/the universe. Therefore its existence is less likely than that of life/the universe.<br /><br />Now life and the universe, complex as they are, are both extremely unlikely. However, their existence enjoys a massive boost in probability by all the blatant evidence around us that both do, in fact, exist. A designer of life/the universe must be even LESS likely to start with, and enjoys no such benefit of evidence. It is therefore improbably and unlikely in the extreme - more so than life/the universe existing all on its own.<br /><br /><b><br />ME - Nor can I provide a testable hypothesis that volcanoes DON'T feel anger.<br /><br />YOU - Then it ain't science.<br /></b><br /><br />It is the entirely rational position which all scientists will take until compelling evidence shows it to be incorrect.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38546230527845163742010-07-05T07:25:10.686-07:002010-07-05T07:25:10.686-07:00Ritchie:
So basically just ASSUME there is/was a d...Ritchie:<br /><i>So basically just ASSUME there is/was a designer?</i><br /><br />Only if tehre evidence for one.<br /><br />Police don't assume there was a criminal unless there is evidence for a crime.<br /><br /><b>That is how it is done in archaeology and forensics.</b> <br /><br /><br /><i>That is not a valid comparison. With forensics and archaeology we have viable candidates for the 'designers' - humans usually. We do not have to invoke hypothetical agents with hypothetical abilities.</i><br /><br />Yes it is a valid comparison.<br /><br />No one knows who the criminal is until they go through the evidence and archaeologists only "know" minute things about their designers- from the evidence left behind.<br /><br /><b>You are coinfusing implication with inference.<br /><br />I never implied anything of the sort.</b><br /><br /><br /><i>Are you saying you infered it?</i><br /><br />No, you inferred it.<br /><br />Do you not understand the English language? <br /><br /><i>Whichever is the case, the point is it is not true. Science is NOT the search for truth by ANY means.</i><br /><br />I never said nor implied that it was.<br /><br /><i>Now please describe how we might acquire knowledge 'scientifically', as opposed to non-scientifically.</i><br /><br />Repeatable experiments- science- asking people non-science.<br /><br />For example forensics scientists use science and detectives use other methods.<br /><br /><i>You did not link to any such thing. Nothing you linked to is evidence that systems are controlled by intelligent processes.</i><br /><br />Everything I linked to requires knowledge to function. Knowledge blind molecules don't have.<br /><br />It is all in the articles you said you read.<br /><br /><b>It is as irrational as one can get.</b><br /><br /><br /><i>No, it is perfectly rational.</i><br /><br />How is it rational when it cannot even be tested?<br /><br />How is saying we are nothing but an accident, rational?<br /><br /><b>You can't even provide a testable hypothesis for such a premise.</b><br /><br /><br /><i>Nor can I provide a testable hypothesis that volcanoes DON'T feel anger.</i><br /><br />Then it ain't science.<br /><br />Thank you for admitting that.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41311535458256345032010-07-04T13:28:18.731-07:002010-07-04T13:28:18.731-07:00Joe G -
In means in the absence of direct obser...Joe G - <br /><br /><b><br />In means in the absence of direct observation or designer input the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or specid=fic process(es) used is by studying the design in question.<br /></b><br /><br />So basically just ASSUME there is/was a designer?<br /><br /><b><br />That is how it is done in archaeology and forensics. <br /></b><br /><br />That is not a valid comparison. With forensics and archaeology we have viable candidates for the 'designers' - humans usually. We do not have to invoke hypothetical agents with hypothetical abilities.<br /><br /><b><br />You are coinfusing implication with inference.<br /><br />I never implied anything of the sort.<br /></b><br /><br />Are you saying you infered it? Whichever is the case, the point is it is not true. Science is NOT the search for truth by ANY means. Now please describe how we might acquire knowledge 'scientifically', as opposed to non-scientifically. What is a 'scientific' method of acquiring knowledge as a opposed to a non-scientific one?<br /><br /><b><br />There is plenty of evidence for just that.<br /><br />I linked to it and you choked on it.<br /></b><br /><br />You did not link to any such thing. Nothing you linked to is evidence that systems are controlled by intelligent processes.<br /><br /><b><br />It is as irrational as one can get.<br /></b><br /><br />No, it is perfectly rational.<br /><br /><b><br />You can't even provide a testable hypothesis for such a premise.<br /></b><br /><br />Nor can I provide a testable hypothesis that volcanoes DON'T feel anger. Again, it is the rational default position.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69512860857030291512010-07-03T14:13:54.264-07:002010-07-03T14:13:54.264-07:00The way to the designer is through the design.
Ri...<b>The way to the designer is through the design.</b><br /><br />Ritchie:<br /><i>What does that mean?</i><br /><br />In means in the absence of direct observation or designer input the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or specid=fic process(es) used is by studying the design in question.<br /><br />That is how it is done in archaeology and forensics. <br /><br /><br />Ritchie:<br /><i>Because frankly you do seem to be implying that science is the search for truth by ABSOLUTELY ANY means.</i><br /><br />You are coinfusing implication with inference.<br /><br />I never implied anything of the sort.<br /><br /><b>You sure as hell don't have any evidence that blind, undirected chenmical processes can account for those systems.<br /><br />And you sure as hell cannot produce any peer-reviewed article that sez so.</b><br /><br /><br /><i>And I don't claim to. But it is the reasonable, rational conclusion in the absence of any evidence that systems are controlled by intelligent processes!</i><br /><br />There is plenty of evidence for just that.<br /><br />I linked to it and you choked on it.<br /><br /><i>Assuming life is the result of blind, unguided forces is the rational DEFAULT position.</i><br /><br />It is as irrational as one can get.<br /><br />You can't even provide a testable hypothesis for such a premise.<br /><br /><b>What is Intelligent Design and What is it Challenging?- a short video featuring Stephen C. Meyer on Intelligent Design.</b> <br /><br /><br /><i>Yes, but one not really saying anything you yourself have not said and I have not refuted</i><br /><br />You haven't refuted anything.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59276156988310537372010-07-03T13:38:53.926-07:002010-07-03T13:38:53.926-07:00As an atheist I would claim to known the truth. I ...As an atheist I would claim to known the truth. I simply take positions that are most probably based on the evidence.ChrisEBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04599834374791930505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-282879978833989062010-07-03T05:39:57.098-07:002010-07-03T05:39:57.098-07:00Joe G -
That is incorrect.
The way to the desig...Joe G -<br /><br /><b><br />That is incorrect.<br /><br />The way to the designer is through the design.<br /></b><br /><br />What does that mean? Because it sounds like 'shape your understanding of the intentions and methods of this hypothetical designer to fit absolutely any evidence presented.'<br /><br />This is not scientific. In science your hypotheses need to be testable. How do you test for the existence or intervention of this hypothesised intelligent agent? Because if you cannot, then you cannot use this agent as an explanation of the phenomena you want to account for.<br /><br /><b><br />You sure as hell don't have any evidence that blind, undirected chenmical processes can account for those systems.<br /><br />And you sure as hell cannot produce any peer-reviewed article that sez so.<br /></b><br /><br />And I don't claim to. But it is the reasonable, rational conclusion in the absence of any evidence that systems are controlled by intelligent processes!<br /><br />We are back to angry volcanoes - I cannot prove a volcano is not angry. If someone believed they were, I could not show absolutely that volcanos are the result of nothing more than blind, unemotional forces. But the point is that this conclusion is the logical one in the absence of evidence that the volcano genuinely is experiencing anger.<br /><br />That a volcano experiences anger is a positive assertion. That life was guided by intelligent processes (or at least the occassional intervention of) is a positive assertion. Without evidence to back up either of them, we should assume they are not the case.<br /><br />Assuming life is the result of blind, unguided forces is the rational DEFAULT position.<br /><br /><b><br />Now you are putting words in my mouth.<br /><br />You can't produce any positive evidence for your position and you are forced to put words into my mouth.<br /></b><br /><br />I am not putting words into your mouth. I am stressing what these people you quoted did and did not say.<br /><br />Because frankly you do seem to be implying that science is the search for truth by ABSOLUTELY ANY means. Isn't this the case? Because if not, then you accept that there are means of acquiring knowledge about the world which are scientific and others which are not? In which case, how do you distinguish between a method that is scientific and one that is not?<br /><br /><b><br />1- Initial conditions<br /><br />2- target/ goal<br /><br />3- processes to do so<br /><br />4- resources for the processes <br /></b><br /><br />Ummm, still not really getting it. Any chance you could explain it yourself?<br /><br /><b><br />What is Intelligent Design and What is it Challenging?- a short video featuring Stephen C. Meyer on Intelligent Design. <br /></b><br /><br />Yes, but one not really saying anything you yourself have not said and I have not refuted, unless I'm missing whatever point you were trying to make by posting it...Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47850162540371218752010-07-02T19:19:28.773-07:002010-07-02T19:19:28.773-07:00Grant: Oops.
S'right.<b>Grant</b>: <i>Oops. </i><br /><br />S'right.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19194154926392287732010-07-02T09:29:33.206-07:002010-07-02T09:29:33.206-07:00What is Intelligent Design and What is it Challeng...<a href="http://www.discovery.org/v/1971" rel="nofollow"><b>What is Intelligent Design and What is it Challenging?</b></a>- a short video featuring Stephen C. Meyer on Intelligent Design.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30271946419228266182010-07-02T09:28:57.097-07:002010-07-02T09:28:57.097-07:00An example of a targeted search:
Automated Antenn...An example of a targeted search:<br /><br /><a href="http://alglobus.net/NASAwork/papers/Space2006Antenna.pdf" rel="nofollow"><b>Automated Antenna Design with Evolutionary Algorithms</b></a><br /><br />1- Initial conditions<br /><br />2- target/ goal<br /><br />3- processes to do so<br /><br />4- resources for the processesJoe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76723566464496577582010-07-02T07:17:46.323-07:002010-07-02T07:17:46.323-07:00Ritchie:
You need to be able to propose a possible...Ritchie:<br /><i>You need to be able to propose a possible designer for ID and common design to fly.</i><br /><br />That is incorrect.<br /><br />The way to the designer is through the design.<br /><br />Ritchie:<br /><i>As for your links, well they seem to be just your own personal blogs misunderatanding various aspects of biology and inferring the God of the Gaps logic to drive your preferred interpretation.</i><br /><br />You sure as hell don't have any evidence that blind, undirected chenmical processes can account for those systems.<br /><br />And you sure as hell cannot produce any peer-reviewed article that sez so.<br /><br /><i>As for the others, well it is true, science IS about the search for truth, of course, but not, as you seem to take it, by ANY means.</i><br /><br />Now you are putting words in my mouth.<br /><br />You can't produce any positive evidence for your position and you are forced to put words into my mouth.<br /><br />Pathetic...Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.com