Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 21 of 648 (583786)
09-28-2010 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dawn Bertot
09-14-2010 7:01 PM


Evidence for design
Let's start off with empirical evidence for design.
Whatever standard you apply must conform to the rules of science, and must separate, to a high degree of certainty, those things that are designed from those that are not designed, i.e., that are natural.
Can we agree that snowflakes, stalactites, and quartz crystals are natural?
If so, then you need to provide rules that separate those from items you claim are designed, and those rules must be based on empirical evidence.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-14-2010 7:01 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 34 of 648 (585189)
10-06-2010 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by barbara
10-06-2010 12:22 PM


Re: What experiments?
Species all have an ID marker-traits, features, etc that tell us where they are located on the planet.
What you are thinking of are called classical racial traits. These are traits that evolve as adaptations to local environments.
For example, residents of the high Andes Mountains have adaptations to allow them to survive and reproduce in an oxygen-poor environment. Those traits are less than 10,000 years or so old, as the mountains were not inhabited earlier.
The neighboring tribes do not have those adaptations.
Not design at all: this is evolution providing adaptations to environments.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by barbara, posted 10-06-2010 12:22 PM barbara has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 46 of 648 (585635)
10-08-2010 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by tesla
10-08-2010 10:22 PM


Re: What experiments?
ID is an argument about how it all came to be the way it is. Not that things are the way they are. One side says its random designation of interation; The other position says its a design by an intelligence. If i'm wrong, correct me?
ID is a religious belief based on scripture, dogma, divine revelation and the like.
That has nothing to do with empirical evidence. In fact, it is the opposite of empirical evidence.
If not: Its a matter of faith to say its random, and a matter of faith to say its God's design.
No. One is based on empirical evidence, and can change if that evidence changes. The other is based on such squishy things as dogma, scripture, and "divine" revelation. How does one test any of those empirically?
(See tagline.)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by tesla, posted 10-08-2010 10:22 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by tesla, posted 10-09-2010 2:05 AM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 91 of 648 (586081)
10-10-2010 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by tesla
10-10-2010 11:17 PM


Math
Yeah, as far as the math part, could be awhile. If ever. Just going to have to wait and see.
The problem with math is that it is abstract.
To be meaningful it has to relate to the real world. Remember the story of the mathematician who showed that bumblebees can't fly? The story is clearly not true, but it does illustrate a caution that mathematicians need to be aware of.
You can have perfectly good math that does not correctly model the real world, and accordingly is of no value.
One of the classic examples I have seen is using math to estimate the odds against life forming, and some of the numbers come up seriously against such a possibility. (I have even seen the odds estimated at 1720 against life forming, but that's another story.)
The example of throwing 50 dice and getting all sixes can be used. You could be there your whole life throwing trying to throw 50 sixes and still not come close. The odds against it are huge. This is what many mathematicians see as the odds against evolution or abiogenesis.
But there is another way to try this: throw all 50 dice and keep the sixes. Throw only those that are not sixes. You'll be done by lunch, with plenty of time for a mid-morning break. That's more of the way evolution operates.
When you are doing your math, please take the real world into consideration.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 11:17 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 105 of 648 (587085)
10-16-2010 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Dawn Bertot
10-16-2010 8:15 PM


Evidence
change, natural selection, etc are not answers, they are observations, the same as design, whic observes ORDER and LAWS
We are on equal playing field. Only arrogance would assumeone is science and the other is not.
We have evidence for change, natural selection, etc. in science.
We do not have evidence for "design." We can't even get creationists to come up with definitions and criteria to differentiate design from non-design. The best we have seen is "I know it when I see it." That's not science.
Face it, the whole ID movement is religion with the serial numbers filed off in hope of fooling the school boards and the courts.
Hasn't worked out too well, has it?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-16-2010 8:15 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-16-2010 8:54 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 112 of 648 (587101)
10-16-2010 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Dawn Bertot
10-16-2010 8:54 PM


Re: Evidence
We have evidence for change, natural selection, etc. in science.
We do not have evidence for "design." We can't even get creationists to come up with definitions and criteria to differentiate design from non-design. The best we have seen is "I know it when I see it." That's not science.
Face it, the whole ID movement is religion with the serial numbers filed off in hope of fooling the school boards and the courts.
Hasn't worked out too well, has it?
And i have evidence of order
Its not simply a matter of design. Design is the conclusion, the same way an eternal existence of mattter is the conclusion of Evo, wehther you ackowledge it or not. You observe change and I observe order, both are science
But that is where you go wrong.
You are right that design is a conclusion, but it is one without supporting evidence or standardized method to get there. It is a conclusion because it is based on religion. You can't point to a specific item and say it was designed, or not, using any specific criteria. We have shown that over and over in these threads. It is design because, "I know design when I see it!" That doesn't make it in science.
If you want to establish a scientific field of "design" a good start would be a reliable definition of what is designed and what is not. That definition will have to separate things that are clearly natural from things that are clearly designed, and it will have to make a good start on determining whether those things which are borderline are designed or not. If you can come up with rules which make a good start in these determinations, then we have something to work with. So far creationists haven't even tried to come up with such rules.
We are are on the same playing field as evidence goes. Ithas nothing to do with religion, so yes it is going just fine.
ID has everything to do with religion. And nothing to do with science. Just look at the folks pushing design. They are virtually all fundamentalists with religious beliefs which overshadow any scientific training they might have had. They are not scientists producing peer-reviewed papers for scientific journals.
Testa and others are on the right track, they just dont know how to pin your ears to the wall, I do
As long as you are pushing fundamentalism and avoiding what the evidence actually shows, and as long as I can provide evidence for what I claim, I don't consider my ears pinned anywhere.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-16-2010 8:54 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-17-2010 3:24 AM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 128 of 648 (587152)
10-17-2010 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Dawn Bertot
10-17-2010 3:24 AM


Re: Evidence
If you want to establish a scientific field of "design" a good start would be a reliable definition of what is designed and what is not. That definition will have to separate things that are clearly natural from things that are clearly designed, and it will have to make a good start on determining whether those things which are borderline are designed or not. If you can come up with rules which make a good start in these determinations, then we have something to work with. So far creationists haven't even tried to come up with such rules.
Your rules are your own, they fly in the face of that which is simply reasonable. "A definition of what is designed and what is not", is primarily determined by logic and observation of order in natural properties. it doesnt need your approval to be reasonable,logical and demonstratable.
Your arrogance assumes as much. All I need to do is establish that is orderly, logical and law abiding, for it to be designed, or the possibility of design. it follows the same rules exacally as any explanation of a mechanism or its conclusions, whether direct or indirect
This is where you are having problems. Your definition of what is designed is no more than, "I can tell it when I see it."
"Orderly, logical, and law abiding" can describe the formation of crystals, ice, stalactites, "silk frost" formations, earth hummocks, and hexagonal clay shrinkage cracks.
What is your rule for determining whether these types of things are designed or not? Without some rule, you are left only with the useless "I can tell it when I see it" definition.
Do you have any rules or not?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-17-2010 3:24 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2010 8:22 AM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 189 of 648 (587457)
10-18-2010 9:25 PM


This thread is terminal
This thread is terminal.
Dawn can't produce anything but gibberish to support the claims of design.
But then this is what we are used to seeing from IDers.
The problem IDers have is the same one that creationists have: they know the answers, and just have to make up some reasonable-sounding pseudo-science to bolster their own belief and hopefully to convince others. Because they know science is wrong, they don't see any need to study it.
The problem is, those of use who do science look at the details and those details provided by creationists and IDers haven't added up to anything. They come on these internet boards and purvey their beliefs wrapped in pseudo-scientific jargon and all we can do is cringe--or laugh.
It really is that bad.
If you want to show how science is wrong, start by learning something about it. Gibberish is not going to impress anyone who knows the difference.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-19-2010 4:08 AM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 579 of 648 (588472)
10-25-2010 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 576 by Dawn Bertot
10-25-2010 8:19 PM


On evidence and gibberish
Arent these explanations disputed. Is there really a trail so fine and detailed that leaves no questions or doubts concerning evos answers and theories
It depends on what evidence supports the dispute. The "evidence" brought forth by creation "scientists" and their stepchildren, IDers, has been refuted time and time again--to no effect.
It seems as if the proponents of creationism and ID have no need for evidence to support their beliefs, and will accept no evidence that contradicts those beliefs.
What if we are talking about simply an old earth and no evolution as attempted by Macro-evo
There is a lot of evidence for an old earth. Pretty much all of it, in fact. But there is no evidence to suggest that evolution didn't happen. There is only belief and dogma.
Isnt it possible that this theory could be wrong concerning its conclusions
Isn't it possible that you are wrong?
There, I have raised as much doubt concerning your theory as you have concerning evolution. Make of it as you will.
the only approach in establishing evidence with present information seems to be limited to logic and its physical applications
Gibberish.
what will logic and present data allow concerning evidence of that which is acceptable
More gibberish.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 576 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-25-2010 8:19 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 582 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-26-2010 9:07 AM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 598 of 648 (588585)
10-26-2010 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 594 by Dawn Bertot
10-26-2010 4:52 PM


Summation
dwise1 writes:
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.
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.
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.
You understand nothing and your lame approvals and reqiriments are not necessary for it to be valid
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 594 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-26-2010 4:52 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 633 by barbara, posted 10-27-2010 1:43 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 627 of 648 (588669)
10-27-2010 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 614 by Dawn Bertot
10-26-2010 11:34 PM


EPIC FAIL!
You fellas really cant go any deeper that your own methodology can you. Neither design or evolution have any more going for it, than the other, THAT IS THE POINT. Both are allowable in the available evidence, both use the same methodology for its conclusions, neither of which is provable, yet both are demonstratable
The theory of evolution is based on evidence. The theory itself explains that evidence. It uses the scientific method in doing so.
"Design" is not based on evidence. It is based on particular religious beliefs. These believers are not even worried that there is no evidence or method supporting it--belief is enough. "Design" fights science and the scientific method because science contradicts it's beliefs. Fail!
There are no other alternatives besides these two, but both follow the same principle in thier application and conclusions
Wrong. "Design" does not follow the scientific method.
You have been asked repeatedly to produce some rule for distinguishing those things that are designed from those that are natural. You have consistently dodged this question. We can only conclude that you have no answer beyond, "I know it when I see it." Which is useless, and not science. Fail!
Both should be taught, there is simply no way around that point, OTHER THAN the SIMPLE, "I DONT LIKE IT", approach
There is no way to teach design as there is no method nor body of data, and certainly no theory to explain the facts. There is only a belief system. Trying to teach design would be nothing more than a catechism or bible study class. Design is nothing more than creation "science" with the serial numbers filed off and everyone not actually pushing design knows it. Fail!
You had your chance in this thread and you have done nothing but repeat your baseless assertions, unable to provide any evidence beyond "I know it when I see it." EPIC FAIL!
Edited by Coyote, : Posted before I saw Admin's post. This can serve as my summary.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 614 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-26-2010 11:34 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024