Alas, poor Ohio .... EvC related news

quote:

---

You just keep on telling yourself that and someday you may actually convince someone, perhaps even yourself.

---

What you don't seem to understand about how science is done is a lot.Nobel prizes are awarded to scientists who overturn dominant paradigms.Why do you think Einstein became so famous?He showed how Newton's theories were wrong, and by doing so allowed science to take a great leap forward in progress.If we were to find evidence that completely overturned the Theory of Evolution, that scientist would certainly win a Nobel prize, and our understanding of natural processes would take another leap forward.I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the ToE isn't maintained to be the best explanation of the evidence because it is dogmatically held.It is maintained because every time we find another fossil, it's in the geologic layer it's predicted to be in, and because we can observe mutation and speciation in organisms in real time, and because the theory survives lots of other tests.That's what each and every one of these experiments and observations are, DS; tests of the theory.Just because the ToE hasn't been falsified doesn't make it unfalsifiable.

Ah, but I didn't say he got the Nobel for Relativity.I said he is famous for it, which is true.However, I certainly see how it could be taken from my message that I made the error.I had my facts right, but crapped up my writing. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-10-2004 03:05 PM

quote:

---

Well, for one thing, you won't find alot of scientists out there working to replace the theory of evolution with something else even when they are confronted with a virtually undeniable sense of design in everything.

---

Everything was "designed", yes.The evidence found in nature strongly supports random mutation combined with natural selection being the designer of life on Earth.

quote:

---

You will, on the other hand, find a plethora of scientists working diligently to support and sustain the theory of evolution.

---

It's THE EVIDENCE and PREDICTIONS that have been BORNE OUT that support and sustain the ToE, not scientists.Scientists work to TEST the theory. Every time we find a new fossil in the layer it was predicted to be in, that is a test of the theory that the theory has passed.What are the predictions of design in nature, and what would falsify a finding of design?

quote:

---

Even the myriad of scientists who have made open statements regarding the overwhelming sense and indication of design that they see throughout the universe are not abandoning the theory of evolution for intelligent design.

---

That's because ID isn't a scientific theory, but a philosophy.It makes no testable predictions, so it is useless as science.

quote:

---

I see the debate on the origins of life eventually progressing into one of intelligent design(creation) vs unintelligent design(evolution).

---

The origin of life has nothing to do with the ToE.The ToE applies to life once it got here, not before.What are the testable predictions of Intelligent Design?Cheers

A reply to message 86 in this thread would be most appreciated, DS.Thanks in advance.

quote:

---

I have merely stated in the past that I acknowledge patterns, designs, and yes, even intelligent designs in the aspects of nature that I am able to personally observe.

---

Specifics, DS.I'd like to know specifics.What are the specific patterns and designs that you have personally observed in nature that have lead you to conclude that they have been intelligently designed?In particular, I am interested in how you know that a natural mechanism or source for these patterns and designs does not exist now, or could not possibly be found in the future.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-19-2004 08:54 PM

Well, the only relevant specific example you gave was that of the honeybee's construction of the honeycomb.The automobile design is not relevant to evolution because they do not reproduce, and we also know who designed the first automobile, and probably all subsequent automobiles since then.Anyway, the post you sent me to did not answer my second question.Let us assume, since I am too lazy right now to do your research for you, that the honeycomb's construction does not currently have a naturalistic explanation.Let us also say that humans are not smart enough to ever understand how it is that honeybees can make honeycombs.Why do you conclude that our lack of knowledge about how honeybees make honeycomb means that an Intelligent Designer must have done it?How do you tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one we don't understand now, or may never understand?Is the honeybee's construction of honeycomb the only specific example of what you see as ID?Surely you didn't give up on science just because of a single, solitary gap in our knowledge, did you?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-20-2004 01:20 PM

quote:

---

On the contrary, I acknowledge patterns, designs, and intelligent designs in nearly every aspect of life, here on earth and throughout the universe.

---

List them.Be specific.

quote:

---

I am unsure of where you got the idea that I have given up on science. Science is a necessary tool that must be used if we are to broaden our understanding, and increase our knowledge of all things within our universe.

---

But don't you have a long list of "intelligent designs in nearly every aspect of life, here on earth and throughout the universe"?Science is the process of understanding naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena.If this long list of "aspects of life" has been Intelligently Designed, trying to figure out their naturalistic explanations is pointless, because, by definition, you somehow know that there is no naturalistic explanation, right?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-21-2004 08:58 AM

quote:

---

Obstinate behaviour and attitude will get you nowhere with me.

---

Refusing to support your claims will get you nowhere with me.I am sorry that you object to my minimalist approach, but since multiple requests for you to provide support for your claims failed, I decided to get very specific and unambiguous.

quote:

---

Are you suggesting that you see no patterns in nature?

---

No.I am asking you what patterns in nature you think areintelligently designed and why you believe they are.Please list them and the evidence you know them to be ID.

quote:

---

Are you suggesting that you see absolutely no evidence of design in the universe?

---

No.I am asking you what patterns in nature you think areintelligently designed and why you believe they are.Please list them and the evidence you know them to be ID.

quote:

---

No designs anywhere that are intelligent in their construct?

---

I am asking you what patterns in nature you think areintelligently designed and why you believe they are.Please list them and the evidence you know them to be ID.

quote:

---

Are seasons an example of a steady pattern in nature or do they just randomly change, keeping no order?

---

Please provide evidence that the seasons are a result of ID.Please show how all naturalistic explanations of the seasons are false. Please deal especially with the fact of the Earth tilting towards and away from the sun.

quote:

---

Are the orbits of the planets in our solar system an example of a working design or do they make abrupt and random changes, resulting in the deterioration and instability of life on our planet?

---

Please provide the evidence that ID is the cause of planetary orbits, including refutations of all the physics and cosmology regarding planetary motion.

quote:

---

The answers are obvious.

---

Excellent! I look forward to reading your detailed, specific answers to my requests for detailed, specific evidence for ID!

quote:

---

You are absolutely right. Naturalistic explanations would be pointless under such a scenario. However, I have never described the patterns, designs, and intelligent designs, which are so apparent in nature, as being the product of an intelligent designer rather than naturalistic forces. Please do not attempt to put words into my mouth. I am fully capable of speaking for myself, and of expressing my own opinions on these matters.

---

Then do so.We've all been waiting.

quote:

---

Whether an entity simply has the appearance of having been intelligently designed when in actuality it is the result of natural phenomena is an arena I leave to the scientists. Whether an entity shows obvious indications of being an intelligent design is well within my expertise, as I have at my disposal the natural senses with which I was born.

---

List them.Be specific.

quote:

---

I can look at nearly every aspect of life and discover this, however I have no intention of offering you an endless list. I can look at a honeycomb and see the intelligence inherent in it's design.

---

How do you know it is Intelligently Designed and not a result of purely natural processes?Please explain.Be specific.

quote:

---

I can look at a spider web and see the intelligence inherent in it's design.

---

How do you know it is Intelligently Designed and not a result of purely natural processes?Please explain.Be specific.

quote:

---

I can look a a mussel that, though without sight, has the ability to exactly mimic shiners, which includes not only their size but also their color, in order to attract bass fish which it uses for propagation purposes.

---

How do you know it is Intelligently Designed and not a result of purely natural processes?Please explain.Be specific.

quote:

---

That is one hell of an intelligent design, at least it is so in my humble opinion.

---

It's a good thing science doesn't operate via personal opinion, isn't it?I believe you are succumbing to a fallacy called the "Argument from Personal Incredulity"divine fallacy (argument from incredulity) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

quote:

---

I do not see alot of substance in your posts.

---

Projection.

quote:

---

You ask the same questions over and over, even after having received the answers.

---

Sorry, perhaps you have a different definition of what an "answer" is, than me.I was asking for specific positive evidence for intelligent design is specific structures or systems, and how it is you know that any naturalistic explanations are incorrect, or if none are known, will never be known.See, those two conditions are necessary for anyone to reasonably claim that something is intelligently designed. Otherwise, you are just ignoring the scientific method and believing what you want to on faith....which is fine, of course, but it isn't rational nor scientific, and nor does it promote our understanding of nature. In fact, it shuts down inquiry altogether.

quote:

---

Perhaps you would do better to make an attempt at educating me. Please provide for me all the evidence available to you that nothing within the vastness of the entire universe shows any sign of design and/or intelligent design.

---

We cannot prove a negative.You must provide positive evidence for your claims if you want anyone to take them seriously as science.If you just want to belive on faith, then I have no argument with you.

quote:

---

Also include all evidence at your disposal that shows this intelligent designer you keep talking about could not possibly exist and therefore could not possibly have created anything.

---

We cannot prove a negative.Scientific ideas are supported by positive evidence.I have never said that an Intelligent Designer cannot possibly exist.All I am asking for is POSITIVE EVIDENCE showing that the "IDer Didit" is a better explanation for observations of natural phenomena that adds to our understanding of how the natural world works.I am also asking for an explanation of how it is you know that there isn't and could never be a naturalistic explanation for the systems and phenomena you have determined to be Intelligently Designed.

quote:

---

I have concentrated on the patterns, designs, and intelligent designs but you seem fixated on having me give you some sort of evidence for an intelligent designer.

---

No, not evidence for the Designer.I want evidence for the Intelligent Design.

quote:

---

So instead of me trying to offer you evidence of something I have not claimed, that being an intelligent designer, would you please provide for me the evidence that you have that an intelligent designer can not possibly exist and then once we have moved beyond that overwhelming evidence that you surely must have at your disposal, we can concentrate on the subject I was talking about.

---

We cannot prove a negative.So far, since I have never seen any sound positive evidence of Intelligent Design, there is no reason to believe it is the source of design in nature.

quote:

---

I wonder whether you will attempt to supply me with the evidence, as it seems that a number of people in this forum have succumbed to what I like to call the "Dumbing Down Syndrome", which states, "My mind can not figure out this wonderfully amazing world in which I live. I can not possibly accept any other explanation due to the fact that a higher degree of logic and reason would bring me to a place that is just too deep for my limited concept of the universe so.......
evolution has to be the answer,
evolution has to be the answer,
evolution has to be the answer"

---

Nice try, but it won't wash.All we want is positive evidence for your positive claim.If you would like to take things on faith, then I have no argument.

what crash said