Witnessing and event first hand, does not need someone elses coroboration or more test for it to be proof a an event or thing immediately, to that person
so you are saying all those people that get abducted and "probed" actually do get abducted and "probed"
Science requires replicability. If you don't include replicability then you're not doing science.
An eyewitness to an event might be very certain in his own mind of what happened, but if he is a scientist then he understands that for others to accept what he knows happened that he must provide corroborating evidence that other scientists can examine for themselves. One person's say so that something happened is, from a scientific perspective, mere anecdotal information that can at best serve only as a guide to further investigation.
And as I said earlier, in science it is best to avoid words like proof and prove. All scientific findings, including the evidence itself, are tentative. Nothing is ever proven once and for all in science.
As to purpose, that is a human construct with no place in science. You cannot equate function with purpose, because everything in the universe has a function. What you are actually claiming is that it is possible to tell when something came about through purpose and intent, but you have not provided the criteria by which you make this determination.
If Iam standing in front of an individual and I watch him kick a football ball, in person, I dont need to conduct tests to see if that is what happened. It is proof positve that it did happen, if it happened only to myself
Something observed by you but not by the people standing next to you is called a hallucination. That's why tests are necessary, to distinguish the real observations from the unreal.
You can believe you saw what you saw but your belief is of no value to anybody else.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
If Iam standing in front of an individual and I watch him kick a football ball, in person, I dont need to conduct tests to see if that is what happened. It is proof positve that it did happen, if it happened only to myself
Okay. So you are standing in front of a person, and you see him kick the football through the goal posts.
If the referees say it did not happen, and if the instant replay says that it did not happen, then it did not happen.
Witnessing and event first hand, does not need someone elses coroboration or more test for it to be proof a an event or thing immediately, to that person
there are also other things our brains can not cope whit say a pickpocket asks for directions shows the person a map while he is explaining the route he tuches him on the shoulder whit one arm and he can use the other arm to take the wallet out of the persons back pocket the 2 tasks of explaining the route and the tucch on the shoulder are enough to owerwhelm the brain causing it to not notice the 3 tuch where the wallet is. the same method can be used to do other stuff to or to confuse people.
our brains are not perfect we get things wrong more times than we think.
Your rambling my friend, I never said law and order were insufficient to conclude design, I said they were insufficient to prove design.
I fail to see how my incorrectly interpreting your meaning is grounds for concluding that I am rambling. One rather thinks the two are orthogonal.
Given the communication difficulties we have already had, it's hardly surprising they would continue.
Concluding as you have verbally that they are not on equal footing in verbage and demonstrating that logically is ofcourse, is another. It seems almost arrogance that you could attempt such a feat
Here is why. Order and purpose are evidential from a physical standpoint. Even if purpose is a conclusion it is demonstratble in the eye. Its functions and results end in a clear and visible purpose
That is positive evidence of purpose, thus design.
And as I suggested earlier by that standard - all evolutionary biologists accept design and purpose are in nature. The theory of evolution was developed, in part, to explain how this design and purpose came to be.
All you can do is suggest that it may not be purpose or design
To reiterate I need not do any such thing. But I can accept purpose and design and cite evolution as the source of these things, as Darwin would accept:
quote:{The eye has} contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration...
Here he "freely confesses" that the components of the eye have purpose, for instance.
quote:If we suppose that the ancient progenitor, the archetype as it may be called, of all mammals, had its limbs constructed on the existing general pattern, for whatever purpose they served, we can at once perceive the plain signification of the homologous construction of the limbs throughout the whole class.
emphasis mine. Biologists have no qualms about purposes and they talk about them all the time. And design, in the 'body plan' kind of sense of the word, isn't a problem for evolution which can also explain it without recourse to a body planner beyond the mechanisms of evolution. Much like one might argue that a Mandelbrot set has a 'design' (an infinitely complex one at that), but it is produced using a simple and logical equation.
Please demonstrate me wrong concerning thes matters
As long as you accept
a) Evolution is a theory that seeks to explain the designs and purposes we see in biological life b) That the existence of design does not necessarily lead to the conclusion of an intelligent designer. c) That design can, as proven experimentally, arise from an algorithmic process (particularly iterative "trial and error" ones ).
Then we don't have any significant on-topic disagreements.
Dawn is using this definition of purpose: a result or effect that is intended or desired (Answers.com). In his mind, anything with purpose is the result of intent by someone and not the result of natural processes "operating in and of themselves." I've been using the word function in place of purpose.
I fail to see how my incorrectly interpreting your meaning is grounds for concluding that I am rambling. One rather thinks the two are orthogonal.
Given the communication difficulties we have already had, it's hardly surprising they would continue.
fair enough I should have said you "misunderstood"
And as I suggested earlier by that standard - all evolutionary biologists accept design and purpose are in nature. The theory of evolution was developed, in part, to explain how this design and purpose came to be.
In fairness, I dont see how evolution explains anything, accept how it might work and a possible pattern, but thats a far cry from, "came to be", dont you think?
That is if we are going to be completely logical
Biologists have no qualms about purposes and they talk about them all the time. And design, in the 'body plan' kind of sense of the word, isn't a problem for evolution which can also explain it without recourse to a body planner beyond the mechanisms of evolution
well Im sorry, I think the hang up will always be "explain It". We dont mean the samething when we use this term. You simply mean an explanation of how it works and i mean where it started or where it came from
If your philosophy whether it be evo or someother ideology, is satisfied with a simple explantion of how it works, then we will always have disagreement
Has Dawn done anything on this thread except state the Argument From Design ... appallingly badly ... over and over again?
Argument from design, the way I have explained it could not be explained any better than I have, trust me I have seen all the approaches. The way I have expressed it, is its logical conclusion both from physicality and logic.
Someones approval is not necessary for it to be what it is, completely logical in all its parts
Your welcome to try and overthrough it if you think you can
Oh yeah, I almost forgot, however, your limited to jibes and insults. I suppose when you have no actual skills as yourself, you have to resort to what you do have
I understand Dr. perhaps it would help to know what you are actually a Dr of.
In fairness, I dont see how evolution explains anything, accept how it might work and a possible pattern, but thats a far cry from, "came to be", dont you think?
Not really, it can be used as a means to explain how the mammalian eye came to be, for instance.
well Im sorry, I think the hang up will always be "explain It". We dont mean the samething when we use this term. You simply mean an explanation of how it works and i mean where it started or where it came from
I'm not proposing the theory of evolution to explain how the eye works, I'm saying it can be used to explain (for example) how mammals eyes came into existence in a world with life without eyes.
You didn't address the main point of my post regarding 'design', I thought that is what you wanted to talk about.
Dawn is using this definition of purpose: a result or effect that is intended or desired (Answers.com). In his mind, anything with purpose is the result of intent by someone and not the result of natural processes "operating in and of themselves." I've been using the word function in place of purpose.
not necessarily what is, "in my mind", but what logic and physical properties will allow
Not really, it can be used as a means to explain how the mammalian eye came to be, for instance.
I'm not proposing the theory of evolution to explain how the eye works, I'm saying it can be used to explain (for example) how mammals eyes came into existence in a world with life without eyes.
You didn't address the main point of my post regarding 'design', I thought that is what you wanted to talk about.
I was not avoiding your point and I understood all of Darwins quotes. But a biological explanation for the existence of things will end up being just that, biological explanations, with nothing more than when you started
To me any answers concerning these issues have to be approached logically and philosophically. Not that you can prove anything outside the scriptures, but what can be logically deduced and what will the evidence and logic allow concerning the origin or design
If I missed someother point then please present it again and i will try and address it
™ Version 4.2