|
Author
|
Topic: The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
Message 59 of 648 (585840)
10-09-2010 11:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 57 by tesla
10-09-2010 11:35 PM
|
|
Re: What experiments?
tesla writes: What’s missing is a scientific definition of God that will be accepted. Accepted being the key.
Accepted by whom?
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 57 by tesla, posted 10-09-2010 11:35 PM | | tesla has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 66 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 6:37 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 74 of 648 (585998)
10-10-2010 7:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 66 by tesla
10-10-2010 6:37 PM
|
|
Re: What experiments?
tesla writes: What’s missing is a scientific definition of God that will be accepted. Accepted being the key.
ringo writes: Accepted by whom?
Scientists.
No problem then. There is a scientific definition of God that is accepted by scientists. It goes something like this:
quote:
God is a factor that can not be observed objectively and has no known effect on the observable universe.
You may not like that definition but scientists do agree on it. Whether they're Hindu or Muslim or Christian or atheist, that's one thing that scientists agree on.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 66 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 6:37 PM | | tesla has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 75 by jar, posted 10-10-2010 7:12 PM | | ringo has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 76 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 7:14 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 81 of 648 (586016)
10-10-2010 7:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 76 by tesla
10-10-2010 7:14 PM
|
|
tesla writes: I'm not concerned of what scientists believe today. That is subject to change tommorrow.
Well, I asked you who needed to agree on the definition and you said, "Scientists." I'm getting too old to chase goalposts. If you want all scientists to agree for all time, then that ain't gonna happen. That flies in the face of what science is. As jar pointed out, scientists need to accept change when new evidence is found. (By the way, let's take jar's revision and say that scientists haven't observed God or any effects of God yet.) So let's try again: Who has to agree on a definition of God? Aren't you just trying to get scientists to agree to your definition of God?
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 76 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 7:14 PM | | tesla has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 82 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 7:47 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 85 of 648 (586028)
10-10-2010 8:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 82 by tesla
10-10-2010 7:47 PM
|
|
tesla writes: The definition of God can be mathematically analyzed for potential.
I'm sure we'd all be interested in seeing your mathematical analysis. You will, of course, have to provide a definition of "potential".
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 82 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 7:47 PM | | tesla has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 89 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 11:17 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 92 of 648 (586085)
10-11-2010 12:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 89 by tesla
10-10-2010 11:17 PM
|
|
tesla writes: Potential=possibility of relevance for scientific discovery.
"Relevance for scientific discovery" requires tangible evidence, not just mathematical speculation. And if we had that tangible evidence, what would be the point of the calculated potential? Pardon me for sounding cynical but it looks to me like you want to use mathematical mumbo-jumbo as a substitute for real-world science.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| 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 |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Dawn Bertot writes: Physical properties in conjunction with logic allow for evidence.
So... we can use logic to draw conclusions from physical properties. Okay.
Dawn Bertot writes: the evidence of which suggest design is real , by demonstration and reason
How does it follow that "design is real"? What are the physical properties that point to that conclusion?
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Dawn Bertot writes: laws and order are the only test that design needs
In what way are laws and order a "test"?
Dawn Bertot writes: The difference is that evolution is TESTABLE
testable for what?
For one thing, DNA can be tested to find related organisms. Your DNA can be tested for whether it was you or your brother that committed the crime. Or maybe it was your cousin or a distant relative on your mother's side. Relatedness is what evolution is all about. So, how can laws and order be similarly tested?
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Dawn Bertot writes: Again, what is it that your are testing for.
As I said in Message 166, you need to test for the physical properties that point to the conclusion that design is real.
Dawn Bertot writes: To demonstrate that matter is eternal in character or that atheism is true one needs all information that has ever existed.
Nobody here is trying to demonstrate that.
Dawn Bertot writes: You have simply convinced yourself, you rmethodology is the only approach.
No, we're not talking about "my methodology" at all. We're trying to figure out what your methodology is. Kindly show, in detail, how you test "laws and order" in such a way that they point to design.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Dawn Bertot writes: ringo writes: As I said in Message 166, you need to test for the physical properties that point to the conclusion that design is real.
Physical properties operating in a logical orderly fashion, consitently and repeadley this is the only test I need for it to be eviidence of order, therefore design.
You're still not describing any test. What equipment do you use? What samples do you test? What results would lead to the conclusion of design? What results would not lead to a conclusion of design? Details, please.
Dawn Bertot writes: All you need to do is demonstrate that it is not order.
Again, nobody is trying to demonstrate that there's no order. We're trying to figure out how that order points to design. Describe the experiments. Without a connection in reality, all the logic in the world has no value.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Dawn Bertot writes: the order that I am witnessing in these test would lead me to design, or possible design, but evidence nonetheless
The question is HOW does that order lead you to design? How do you distinguish, by experiment, what is designed from what is not? You can't just co-opt somebody else's experiment and re-interpret the conclusion. You need additional evidence from additional experiments to show that your conclusion is correct and the conclusion accepted by science is wrong. What additional experiments will you do and how will they confirm or falsify your hypothesis?
Dawn Bertot writes: No No, thats your problem, showing that order is not present.
Again, nobody is suggesting that order is not present. The question is whether or not that order points to design.
Dawn Bertot writes: if you admit order is present, is it the possible result of a designer, yes or No?
You're getting ahead of yourself. You can't decide whether order is the possible result of the Tooth Fairy until you establish that the Tooth Fairy exists. If your experiments are supposedly pointing to design, then they have to be pointing at the designer too.
Dawn Bertot writes: if you adnmit order is present, what type of order is it?
Before you can decide what type of order it is, you have to define what types there are. Slow down and explain everything in detail. It isn't a race.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Dawn Bertot writes: Experiment is not necessary, where logic dictates, the only possible outcome.
Logic can not dictate an outcome. Logic has to be tested against reality. You can propose any old logical nonsense but unless the premises are true, the conclusion is worthless. You can show logically how many legs a unicorn must have but until you actually observe a unicorn, the conclusion tells you nothing.
Dawn Bertot writes: Both design or order and eternal matter are supported by the data and logic.
Again, nobody's talking about "eternal matter" here.
Dawn Bertot writes: Tell me plainly, sharon stone infatuated, what does science tell us about the origin of matter, is it eternal or finite
We're not talking about the origin of matter. We're talking about whether or not logic can operate in a vaccuum, with no anchor in reality. Without premises that are true and based on physical observation, logic can not produce conclusions that have any basis is reality.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Dawn Bertot writes: Logic pitted against existence itself, dictates that there are only 2 POSSIBLE explanations or possibilitesfor the existence of things.
That doesn't address what I said. You said in Message 163 that design is "real". You can't reason from the abstract to the real. You need to start with a basis in reality - i.e. true premises. "Possible" explanations are worthless without real-world data.
Dawn Bertot writes: The proposition of order, is dictated by both logic and physical properties.
Try to keep up. Nobody is arguing against order.
Dawn Bertot writes: Hence design is an easy and identifiable conclusion to such a proposition, until such time science controverts its tenets
Again, the conclusion is worthless without real-world data that point to it - and not to any other conclusion. You need to do experiments to distinguish your conclusion from the conventional conclusion.
Dawn Bertot writes: What tests will science conduct to test for the etrnality of matter.
Try to keep up. Nobody cares about the "eternality of matter". Science only concerns itself with the matter that exists today and that existed in the observable past.
Dawn Bertot writes: My TEST ends up being the same one as yours, only logic against reality
That's what I'm trying to tell you. Your test is useless because it does nothing to distinguish your proposition from the conventional science. That's why you need a different test, one that points to your conclusion and away from the conventional explanation.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 243 of 648 (587622)
10-19-2010 7:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 239 by Buzsaw
10-19-2010 6:51 PM
|
|
Re: The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
Buzsaw writes: IDists observe and come to a different conlusion.
It isn't enough to just come to a conclusion. You need to show why your conclusion is better. That's why people are constantly asking IDists to do some experiments to verify their conclusions. You can't just piggyback on the data collected by scientists. You have to collect your own data if you want to be taken seriously. Edited by ringo, : Spell7ing
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 239 by Buzsaw, posted 10-19-2010 6:51 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Dawn Bertot writes: ringo writes: You need to show why your conclusion is better.
better than what?
Better than whatever it is that you want to replace. You haven't been very lucid about what you want to accomplish with this thread. First tell us what your idea is better than and then show us how it is better.
Dawn Bertot writes: Can your precious science please give me a test that measures where the things came from to accomplish evolution
Knowing where matter came from doesn't help us understand how evolution works, so it may be interesting but it isn't particularly relevant.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Dawn Bertot writes: Ringo, any theory dealing with physical realities has to concern itself with it origination point and its mechanism of origination
Nonsense. A physical reality like a car can be "dealt with" without knowing anything about the smelting of iron or the mining of iron or the geology of iron formations or the origin of iron atoms. A mechanic can formulate a theory of why an engine doesn't run without such extraneous details. The same is true for understanding the day-to-day workings of evolution.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
™ Version 4.2