Why are there evolutionists?
Why are there evolutionists? It appears that not one can defend the position. IOW it appears that the position of evolutionist rests almost entirely on faith.
Sure we see natural selection in action but everything we observe in biology just leads to wobbling stability.
The challenge would be to provide any biological/ genetic data that demonstrates a population can get through that wobbling stability. However it is a given that no such data will be provided.
Take blipey for example. The best it can do is to say that the vast majority of scientists accept it so that is good enough for it. But blipey is nothing but a clown- meaning it has a diminished capacity for dealing with reality. To it reality = drivel. That much is confirmed by its posts in my blog. My guess is that is why it chooses to be an evolutionist.
Dr Theobald tries to make a Scientific Case for Common Descent, yet he doesn't mention a mechanism and his "evidences" can also be used to support a Common Design. IOW his "evidences" are very subjective and can neither be objectively tested nor verified as being exclusive to Common Descent.
A critique of Theobald's evidences.
I used to be part of that lot but then I grew up and actually looked at reality. And reality demonstrates that no one even knows if the transformations required (if life's diversity arose from one or a few populations of single-celled organisms) are even possible.
The only defense of the theory is to try to discredit anyone who speaks out against it. That alone should tell most objective people that the theory is nonsense.
Sure we see natural selection in action but everything we observe in biology just leads to wobbling stability.
The challenge would be to provide any biological/ genetic data that demonstrates a population can get through that wobbling stability. However it is a given that no such data will be provided.
Take blipey for example. The best it can do is to say that the vast majority of scientists accept it so that is good enough for it. But blipey is nothing but a clown- meaning it has a diminished capacity for dealing with reality. To it reality = drivel. That much is confirmed by its posts in my blog. My guess is that is why it chooses to be an evolutionist.
Dr Theobald tries to make a Scientific Case for Common Descent, yet he doesn't mention a mechanism and his "evidences" can also be used to support a Common Design. IOW his "evidences" are very subjective and can neither be objectively tested nor verified as being exclusive to Common Descent.
A critique of Theobald's evidences.
I used to be part of that lot but then I grew up and actually looked at reality. And reality demonstrates that no one even knows if the transformations required (if life's diversity arose from one or a few populations of single-celled organisms) are even possible.
The only defense of the theory is to try to discredit anyone who speaks out against it. That alone should tell most objective people that the theory is nonsense.
posted by Joe G @ 8:47 AM
85 Comments:
At 1:25 AM,
Gil Sanders said…
How an evolutionist would answer:
Why are there evolutionists?
Why are there scientists? Evolution is fundamentally as well established as anything in science can be. The details may be uncertain but as Stephen Gould said, ""Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome." Compared to your flat earth belief, we have science on our side.
A critique of Theobald's evidences...yet he doesn't mention a mechanism and his "evidences" can also be used to support a Common Design.
Theobald Responds to Ashby Camp's "Critique"
Theobald is brilliant and refuted Ashby's logical fallacies. Anyone who reads this article knows that evolution is based on the observable. ID is just religion, and doesn't make predictions. False. Theobald doesn't need to mention a mechanism. Guess you didn't read what he said. He also mentioned beforehand some mechanisms such as genetic drift and all that.
However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open...Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms.
I used to be part of that lot but then I grew up and actually looked at reality.
Good thing reality isn't based on what you perceive to be true.
It is so easy to "reason" like an evolutionist. Perhaps too easily...
At 1:39 AM,
Gil Sanders said…
Leaving aside the sarcastic comment, Theobald has a small discussion on whether there are any other viable scientific explanations. His argument is nothing new, and like bipley, the majority of scientific acceptance means that evolution is true.
Furthermore, he argues that there are no scientifically alternative explanations for four reasons. One reason is because Common Descent makes predictions. I don't know about you, but that is circular reasoning. The point of alternative theories are for explaining that data but apparently Theobald has no problem in assuming this. Other explanations are not possible!
Second reason, is that "no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found". However, I never knew that contradictory evidence must be presented for there to be alternative theories. Evolution is a smorgasbord which can accommodate anything so I am not surprised either way.
3rd reason says "competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data". Yet throughout his article, he never even back this assertion up. As all evolutionists do, they assume evolution as true and the only explanation in order to make such a claim. Facts don't speak for themselves. The data is simply given an evolutionary interpretation and most of that has just been accommodated by evolution as evidence.
4th reason says "many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data". Common descent is untestable! They merely assume that evolution is the cause of the data that they see. Intelligent Design is testable and so is a young earth. Whether the scientific majority or Theobald don't accept it as such doesn't change anything. I am happy that Theobald has at least demonstrated that evolution is untestable.
Conclusion: Theobald is full of crap...
At 7:45 AM,
Joe G said…
Hello Macguy and welcome to IR.
Gould is right in that there is only one reality behind what we are observing and that reality isn't going to cease to be just because we haven't figured it out.
However imagination is no substitute for that reality. Evolutionists seem to think that imagination is a legitimate substitute.
Some think that since they can imagine a multiverse scenario all possibilities are inevitable- including the oririgin and subsequent evolution of living organisms.
The point of this thread is, it appears to me, that the majority of evolutionists are evolutionists because some alleged majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution and Common Descent. And that is just a sad position to hold.
But the problem is these same sheep also feel it is necessary to misrepresent all alternatives to their belief just so they feel OK about blindly following strangers.
It would be safe to say that most evos haven't had an original thought in their entire life. But they are the Borg and we will be assimilated...
At 7:26 PM,
blipey said…
You certainly are obsessed with me. You want to have children or something? Because I don't swing that way, even if you are more attractive than the studly DaveScot.
At 7:33 PM,
blipey said…
the majority of evolutionists are evolutionists because some alleged majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution and Common Descent. And that is just a sad position to hold.
But the problem is these same sheep also feel it is necessary to misrepresent all alternatives to their belief just so they feel OK about blindly following strangers.
I'm in awe.
At 7:41 PM,
blipey said…
In all seriousness, can you explain this sentence from your comment?
...because some alleged majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution...
You appear to believe that a majority of scientists refute the theory of evolution. Do you have numbers and data to back this up?
For example, can you provide the study that shows that 51% of scientists refute the theory of evolution.
Notice, very carefully if you will, that your claim has nothing to do with whether ToE is correct or not. You just claim that a majority of scientists do not accept ToE.
If you're going to make that claim, you have to provide the data to back it. Or retract it. Since we know you're not going to do the latter, please provide the study.
Now watch, oh captivated audience (oh, that's right there isn't any), as Joe ignores his claim and instead of backing it up, calls me a homosexual.
Now, THAT'S HOW ISSUES ARE DECIDED!
Rah, ignorance!
At 8:56 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey spews:
You certainly are obsessed with me. You want to have children or something?
LoL! Nice projection blipster.
If I hung out on your blog you may have a point. However reality demonstrates you have a fixation with me.
But you are mostly harmless plus you do a great job of demonstrating how vacuous the anti-ID position is. So I tolerate you for that reason alone.
In all seriousness, can you explain this sentence from your comment?
...because some alleged majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution...
You appear to believe that a majority of scientists refute the theory of evolution.
You are truly a twisted imbecile.
I said the majority accept the theory of evolution. It's in the OP too.
Obviously you still can't understand what you read.
You just claim that a majority of scientists do not accept ToE.
I never made that claim in my life. I never even implied such a thing.
Therefore once again you demonstrate that you are a twisted jerk.
Rah, ignorance!
That is all blipey has- raw ignorance coupled with a twisted mind.
Here is what should be done:
Ask each and every scientists if he/ she accepts the theory of evolution and Common Descent.
Those who say -"Yes"- then have to put down the data which demonstrates a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organisms.
The next will deal with the (alleged) evolution of verts from inverts- provide the data that demonstrtates such a transformation is even possible.
Then we can ask for the data for all of the other alleged "great transformations" (see PBS "Evoltion").
And if they cannot provide the relevant data then we will know that they "accept" the ToE on faith.
At 12:40 PM,
blipey said…
So you're saying you can't provide the data? You know, to back up this thing that you said:
"...because some alleged majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution and Common Descent."
Are you aware of what the word "alleged" means?
Are you aware that by saying that an "alleged majority" of scientists accept ToE and CD that you are implying that there is serious doubt as to whether or not a majority of scientists accept ToE and CD.
So, again--I'm being pretty polite and asking a not-too-difficult thing--please back up your claim. Show us that a majority of scientists don't actually accept ToE and CD.
At 2:00 PM,
Joe G said…
Show us that a majority of scientists don't actually accept ToE and CD.
Again, that is not my claim.
I never said, thought nor implied any such thing.
I cannot make it any clearer than that.
blipey appears to take some issue with the following:
The point of this thread is, it appears to me, that the majority of evolutionists are evolutionists because some alleged majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution and Common Descent. And that is just a sad position to hold.
which is in reference to the following from the OP:
Take blipey for example. The best it can do is to say that the vast majority of scientists accept it so that is good enough for it. But blipey is nothing but a clown- meaning it has a diminished capacity for dealing with reality. To it reality = drivel. That much is confirmed by its posts in my blog. My guess is that is why it chooses to be an evolutionist.
Context is important. So blipey ignores the context.
But anyway- the word alleged, in "...because some alleged majority of scientists...", is used because I have never seen the data that included ALL scientists in the world. All I have is mostly anonymous say-so to go by. Therefore "alleged" is the correct word.
And not only would it be key to interview all scientists in the world about their acceptance the interview must also cover the "why", as in provide the scientific data requested.
IOW it's not enough to have a scientist accept something. They. too, have to say why and be able to back it up with real scientific data- leave the imaginary nonsense at the door.
Are you aware that by saying that an "alleged majority" of scientists accept ToE and CD that you are implying that there is serious doubt as to whether or not a majority of scientists accept ToE and CD.
What you infer should never be conflated with what I imply. However I understand that English may not be your strong language and you are a proven twisted freak...
At 4:56 PM,
blipey said…
Great. So that's cleared up. You do accept that the majority of scientists accept ToE and CD.
That's all I wanted. A clear understanding that a majority of scientist (in fact, the GREAT majority of scientists) do in fact accept ToE and CD.
By saying that there is only an alleged majority, you use the old creationist tactic of mis-information. Indeed, context is important. It's important because words actual mean something--not that you would understand that.
So, once again, can it be said that Joe Gallien believes to the best of his knowledge that the majority of scientists accept ToE and CD?
This is a simple yes or no question.
At 5:15 PM,
Joe G said…
A clear understanding that a majority of scientist (in fact, the GREAT majority of scientists) do in fact accept ToE and CD.
Do you have any data to back that up?
That would be nice. The data should include the names and specialty of the scientist, as well as their explanation of why they accept it. Included in that explanation should be the data I asked for.
That way we could see if they accept it on faith or for scientific reasons. Only scientific reasons will be accepted- IOW if a scientist accepts it and can't provide the data requested then they obviously accept it on faith.
I see blipey still can't understand simple explanations:
But anyway- the word alleged, in "...because some alleged majority of scientists...", is used because I have never seen the data that included ALL scientists in the world. All I have is mostly anonymous say-so to go by. Therefore "alleged" is the correct word.
No surprise there...
BTW blipey- I also accept the fact that not one scientist can provide the data I requested. IOW any scientist who says the accept the ToE and CD do so only on faith.
And that has been my point for decades.
At 5:17 PM,
Joe G said…
Context, blipey, context:
But anyway- the word alleged, in "...because some alleged majority of scientists...", is used because I have never seen the data that included ALL scientists in the world. All I have is mostly anonymous say-so to go by. Therefore "alleged" is the correct word.
And not only would it be key to interview all scientists in the world about their acceptance the interview must also cover the "why", as in provide the scientific data requested.
IOW it's not enough to have a scientist accept something. They. too, have to say why and be able to back it up with real scientific data- leave the imaginary nonsense at the door.
At 5:23 PM,
blipey said…
Joe, your statement requires no reasoning. All you said was that scientists don't accept ToE and CD. There was no mention of reasons at first. That has only appeared since I called you on it.
And providing anything to you will be pointless. Why? Because in your comment 2 ago, you said you will accept no evidence as being valid:
Joe G: I also accept the fact that not one scientist can provide the data I requested.
Since you've already made up your mind, it is pointless to actually try to converse with you. This site only exists for humor; a job at which it partly succeeds.
At 5:25 PM,
Joe G said…
And the bottom-line is it doesn't matter if every scientist in the world accepts something. If they cannot substantiate or demonstrate their claim their "acceptance" is moot.
Science is not now, nor has it ever been, a majority rule system. Reality does not yield to any majority, no matter how vast or overwhelming said majority is.
And there is a huge gap between what scientists accept pertaining to the theory of evolution and Common Descent and what they can demonstrate and substantiate.
At 6:28 PM,
Joe G said…
All you said was that scientists don't accept ToE and CD.
But I didn't say that. I never thought nor implied it either.
IOW once again you pulled a turd from your ass, liked the smell and decided to post it.
Next blipey really demonstrates how big of an asshole it really is:
Because in your comment 2 ago, you said you will accept no evidence as being valid:
Joe G: I also accept the fact that not one scientist can provide the data I requested.
What blipey stated in no way follows from what I posted. IOW there isn't anything in what I posted that woulds allow an objective person to infer that I "will accept no evidence as being valid". That is just more made-up nonsense. Par for the course though.
Just because they can't provide it doesn't mean I won't accept it. That's just plain stupidity- something that blipey keeps demonstrating.
blipey is just another blind sheep. Thanks for the confirmation- as if I needed more evidence...
Keep twisting blipey. You are the best resource to show how vacuous the theory of evolution really is. I couldn't do it all by myself and all the othet loser evos have run away.
Thanks again for your help...
At 1:15 AM,
blipey said…
Would it be too much to ask for you to answer a simple yes/no question?
Do you think that the majority of scientists accept ToE and CD?
Yes.
or
No.
Here's my answer:
Yes.
What's yours?
At 8:17 AM,
Joe G said…
Would it be too much to ask for you to answer a simple yes/no question?
It depends if the answer to the question is just a simple yes or no.
Do you think that the majority of scientists accept ToE and CD?
Yes.
or
No.
Here's my answer:
Yes.
Great blipey- now back it up with some real data.
And if those scientists cannot provide valid scientific data to support their acceptance then it does not matter that they are scientists. They would be accepting it as a matter of faith.
It's not a simple yes or no question. Only a simpleton would think thta it is.
IOW it does not matter what anyone accepts or what I think scientists accept. It matters what can be substantiated, demonstrated and verified.
Ya know clowns are generally funny because they act stupid. However with you it is obvious it isn't an act.
At 8:41 AM,
Joe G said…
or scientists or all scientists accepting something has as much weight as blipey accepting something if those scientists cannot provide valid scientific reasoning (reasoning backed by scientific data) for their acceptance.
IOW it is a hollow acceptance- hollow just like the theory of evolution.
At 11:19 AM,
crevo said…
"Why are there scientists? Evolution is fundamentally as well established as anything in science can be."
Can you provide evidence for your claim? How do the quantitative predictions of _evolution_ (as opposed to, say, genetics, which was founded by a creationist) stack up against, say, physics or chemistry? Please be specific and show how numerically more accurate evolutionary theory is in predicting phenomena, including the number of significant figures it is able to predict, compared to these other areas.
Just as a basic case-in-point, you should see the MIT OpenCourseware course on introductory biology, specifically Eric Lander's stuff (denoted as ESL on the schedule).
Pay specific attention to the qualitative difference of epistemic justifications he makes with respect to evolutionary claims and biochemical/genetic claims. You will find that the former are almost always just hand-waving mythologies about origins, while the latter he actually takes the class through a process of having to prove each and every idea. It is really telling to listen to in that regard.
At 12:37 PM,
blipey said…
Blipey: Do you like chocolate ice cream?
Joe G: blah, blah, blah, blah
Blipey: Come on, it's a simple yes/no question.
Joe G: no it's not, blah, blah, blah
How is it that you actually answer any questions in your life, Joe? Do you just never use the words yes or no?
Interesting.
At 3:55 PM,
Dazza McTrazza said…
And if those scientists cannot provide valid scientific data to support their acceptance then it does not matter that they are scientists. They would be accepting it as a matter of faith.
Ah good - so I patiently await your scientific data showing that a designer created all life that exists on this earth... Wait! You don't believe that as a matter of faith do you?
At 4:58 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey: Do you like chocolate ice cream?
Joe G: Yes I do. However it is not my favorite flavor.
blipey:How is it that you actually answer any questions in your life, Joe?
I answer questions on a daily basis. Trouble-shooting is all about answering questions. Dealing withn a 4 year old is also all about answering questions. And if that isn't enough for ya, I am also married.
My mother-in-law died yesterday (what a way to start the winter) and I have been asked to answer many questions. Why? I never met the lady.
blipey:Do you just never use the words yes or no?
Color. Yes or no is so black and white.
For example I was pumping gas (self-serve) one day and a woman asked me if I knew where a certain nursing home was, and I said "Yes". However that wasn't good enough for her even though it was obviously a "yes or no" question.
What you shouldn't do, blipey, is to conflate how I treat you to how I act in the real world.
Ya see you are nuthin' but a freakin' clown and an obvious parasite. IOW you get what you deserve.
At 5:00 PM,
Joe G said…
Dazza returns with:
Ah good - so I patiently await your scientific data showing that a designer created all life that exists on this earth
But that's not what ID says.
But thank you for again demonstrating why ID needs to presented in schools- education cures ignorance.
At 6:09 PM,
blipey said…
Great. Ftk couldn't tell us what a lesson plan might be.
I eagerly await your lesson plan.
At 9:12 AM,
Dazza McTrazza said…
Dazza returns with:
Ah good - so I patiently await your scientific data showing that a designer created all life that exists on this earth
But that's not what ID says.
Oh! So ID does admit that life can arise through non-intelligent means? So the OOL problem is not a problem with evolutionary theory as far as ID is concerned?
At 9:59 AM,
Joe G said…
Dazza:
So ID does admit that life can arise through non-intelligent means?
No- the scientific data demonstrates that only life begets life.
Dazza:
So the OOL problem is not a problem with evolutionary theory as far as ID is concerned?
The OoL has nothing to do with evolutionary theories. At least that is what evolutionists keep saying.
Ya see Dazza, when you said:
Ah good - so I patiently await your scientific data showing that a designer created all life that exists on this earth
I responded with:
But that's not what ID says.
because all life that exists today are descendants of the originally designed life-forms.
IOW the life that exists today wasn't directly designed. It is the result of generations undergoing evolutionary processes.
Do we know what those originally designed life-forms were? No, that is what science is for- to help us make that determination.
At 10:08 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey,
What lesson plan? I would settle for a simple showing of two pro-ID videos: The Privileged Plannet and Unlocking the Mystery of Life, along with the books "The Privileged Planet" and perhaps "Darwinism, Design and Public Education" being made readily available to students.
Teachers at public schools are not yet qualified to teach ID but they should be qualified to discuss the data presented during their regular science classes.
And at this point in time that is all I ask for. That should be education enough to stop the blatant ID ignorance that is rampant, at least on the internet.
IOW blipey my "lesson plan" would be to present the data along with the options for the data- how did what we are observing arise? Was it by design or sheer dumb luck? Are there any other options?
Then have a discussion in which a method of testing can be hammered out. Then do it.
At 12:04 PM,
blipey said…
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the way the non-home schooled are educated. If you're going to present something at a school, you'll need a lesson plan.
So, fine, show The Privileged Planet, but under what lesson plan?
Why are you taking up valuable educational time with a film? If I were to have Richard Dawkins in to speak to the class, I would need a lesson plan in order to do it. Hell, when I present school assembly shows, I provide the schools with the lesson plans for the show.
So, what specific educational lessons and state criteria are we getting from your ID introductions?
Again, the lesson plan, please.
At 12:06 PM,
blipey said…
Then have a discussion in which a method of testing can be hammered out. Then do it.
I suppose this is not an admission that a method of testing has not been worked out yet?
Or that the best place to work that out is in 3rd grade classrooms?
Nice.
At 3:38 PM,
Dazza McTrazza said…
"IOW the life that exists today wasn't directly designed. It is the result of generations undergoing evolutionary processes."
Hoorah! So evolution does occur! It's only Origin of Life issues where ID and evolutionary theory part ways? Then I think we are more in agreement than I first thought - neither you nor I know how life originated and, as you so rightly pointed out, this is what science should help us to do. But since we both agree that evolution is responsible for what happened after, I suggest that IDers produce their own research validating an intelligent designer creating life while evolutionary scientists work on it from a non-design angle - whoever gets there first wins!
Glad to see there will be no more posts talking about the problems of evolution after the first life(s) were created.
At 7:49 AM,
Joe G said…
Dazza continues to expose its ignorance:
IOW the life that exists today wasn't directly designed. It is the result of generations undergoing evolutionary processes."
Dazza:
Hoorah! So evolution does occur!
Evolution isn't being debated. Even YECs agree that evolution takes place.
Dazza:
It's only Origin of Life issues where ID and evolutionary theory part ways?
Ya see Dazza, it's like this:
If living organisms didn't arise from non-living matter via stochastic, ie blind watchmaker-type, processes, then there would be no reason to infer the subsequent diversity of said living organisms arose solely due to those types of processes.
IOW if living organisms were designed then the inference would be they were also designed to evolve.
Dazza:
Then I think we are more in agreement than I first thought - neither you nor I know how life originated and, as you so rightly pointed out, this is what science should help us to do.
Again how living organisms originated directly impacts any subsequent evolution.
Dazza:
But since we both agree that evolution is responsible for what happened after, I suggest that IDers produce their own research validating an intelligent designer creating life while evolutionary scientists work on it from a non-design angle - whoever gets there first wins!
And science has already demonstrated that only life begets life.
Also RNA and DNA consist of nucleotides. Nucleotides only exist in living organisms!
Dazza:
Glad to see there will be no more posts talking about the problems of evolution after the first life(s) were created.
No problems. It just hasn't been shown to do much beyond wobbling stability
IOW we don't have any data which demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into anything but single-celled organisms!
Heck we don't even know if any mechanism can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans!
IOW if the first living organisms were somewhat similar to what we see today then there isn't any issue with "evolution".
At 8:01 AM,
Joe G said…
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the way the non-home schooled are educated. If you're going to present something at a school, you'll need a lesson plan.
Erik, one thing is for sure- I am not going to listen to a freaking clown when it comes to education- especially science education.
So, fine, show The Privileged Planet, but under what lesson plan?
I would show it to the whole school. It would not be a part of any particular class.
All I am looking for is to expose students to ID reality.
Why are you taking up valuable educational time with a film?
Films are part of that valuable educational time. And that valuable educational time is already being wasted with dogma- ie unsubstantiated and unverifiable grand claims.
If I were to have Richard Dawkins in to speak to the class, I would need a lesson plan in order to do it.
But you're not a teacher. Why would you need a lesson plan?
So, what specific educational lessons and state criteria are we getting from your ID introductions?
You would be getting a lesson in ID reality. It may put a crimp in the nonsensical dogma that teachers mindlessly spew, but that is the point.
Then have a discussion in which a method of testing can be hammered out. Then do it.
I suppose this is not an admission that a method of testing has not been worked out yet?
Ummm YOUR position can't be tested buckwheat. My proposotion tales into account ALL positions-
Present the data along with the possible options. That is the only lesson plan when we don't know. And when it comes to biology, we don't know many things.
For example we can't test the premise that single-celled organisms can evolve ionto something other than single-celled organisms. We don't even know whether or not such evolution is even possible.
So the first step in any lesson plan would be to rid the classrooms of the nonsensical dogma that has been allowed to infiltrate and indoctrinate.
IOW HS is a great place to start working on critical thinking skills. Which is something a clown wouldn't need.
At 8:25 AM,
Dazza McTrazza said…
And science has already demonstrated that only life begets life.
Also RNA and DNA consist of nucleotides. Nucleotides only exist in living organisms!
Uh-oh - sounds like your designer is in for some serious trouble. If only life begets life, ID is in exactly the same quandry as evolution. Either the designer is alive and therefore must have been designed ad infinitum or it's not alive and hence is a case of non-life creating life. On the other hand we could suppose that life may come from non-life (even though we haven't observed it), avoid the paradox, which leaves evolution and ID on the same initial footing. Add in the 150 odd years of papers supporting evolution and I think we have a win for the non-ID squad.
IOW we don't have any data which demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into anything but single-celled organisms!
Again, this poses just as much of a problem for ID as evolution. Either you're telling me that the designer pre-programmed evolution into the first living thing (which you have absolutely NO proof for) or you are taking a Biblical literalist position and all animals were created by the Designer at once (which goes completely against everything we see in the fossil record). So are you going to make an unsupported assertion (which I know you hate) or will we have to start dicussing the feasibility of Noah's Ark?
At 8:57 AM,
Joe G said…
And science has already demonstrated that only life begets life.
Also RNA and DNA consist of nucleotides. Nucleotides only exist in living organisms!
Dazza:
Uh-oh - sounds like your designer is in for some serious trouble.
Very doubtful.
Dazza:
If only life begets life, ID is in exactly the same quandry as evolution.
Again you are obviously ignorant, ID is OK with evolution- evolution being a change in allele frequency, over time, within a population.
Also, as far as we know, the designer(s) is (are) life- life being one of the 4 fundamental entities along with matter, energy and information.
Dazza:
Either the designer is alive and therefore must have been designed ad infinitum or it's not alive and hence is a case of non-life creating life.
No THAT is a logical fallacy!
Dazza:
On the other hand we could suppose that life may come from non-life (even though we haven't observed it), avoid the paradox, which leaves evolution and ID on the same initial footing.
The alleged paradox only exists in your bitty little mind.
Dazza:
Add in the 150 odd years of papers supporting evolution and I think we have a win for the non-ID squad.
There isn't any paper that supports the premise that all of the living organisms today owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms vua culled genetic accidents.
All papers dealing with biology and genetics supprt the premise of wobbling stability.
IOW we don't have any data which demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into anything but single-celled organisms!
Dazza:
Again, this poses just as much of a problem for ID as evolution.
No, it doesn't.
Dazza:
Either you're telling me that the designer pre-programmed evolution into the first living thing (which you have absolutely NO proof for) or you are taking a Biblical literalist position and all animals were created by the Designer at once (which goes completely against everything we see in the fossil record).
As for "proof" you don't have squat. Not one thing, outside of the aforementioned wobbling stability, that evos spew can be objectively tested nor verified.
The fossil record doesn't help you. It certainly doesn't support the theory of evolution. For that you would need some actual biological data.
No one knows how the fossil record was formed. The fact that there are terrestrial fossils at all screams of catstrophies. And catatrophies argue against gradualism.
Dazza:
So are you going to make an unsupported assertion (which I know you hate) or will we have to start dicussing the feasibility of Noah's Ark?
Read "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study".
As for unsupported assertions- it appears that is all you have.
You may want to believe in sheer dumb luck but until you can support it all you have is faith. And that is the topic of this thread- that evos are evos, not because of the data, but because of faith and faith alone.
And you have demonstrated exactly that. Thanks.
At 10:25 AM,
Dazza McTrazza said…
As for unsupported assertions- it appears that is all you have.
Hrm, let's look at some of youir refutations.
Very doubtful.
No THAT is a logical fallacy!
The alleged paradox only exists in your bitty little mind.
No, it doesn't.
Sterling stuff - no wonder scientists quake in your presence - who could possible contend with such well-argued viewpoints?!
You see, this is the exactly the reason why people that support the ID movement, like yourself, will never have any bearing on actual scitenific debate. Your arguments consist of already-refuted canards, whose refutations you merely close your ears to. When any problem is presented with your "theory", all you can say is "It's not a problem! You're stupid!"
Oh and thanks for admitting you believe in Noah's Ark as fact - care to elaborate on how we define "kinds"?
At 1:20 PM,
blipey said…
Thank you for admitting you know nothing about how education works. You would need a lesson plan to present material at a school.
The principal or district office would need to approve the content of your presentation.
Outside presenters supply lesson plans to clearly outline the education goals of the program and to tell exactly how it coordinates with state evaluation standards.
So, how about your lesson plan for showing The Privileged Planet?
As a little experiment try walking into your neighborhood school and giving any sort of program at all. It doesn't have to be your little film, try something more mainstream and uncontroversial. You'll find that you have to answer all the questions you're avoiding here. Not because you want to teach id in schools, but because you want to teach anything in schools.
Should just take a few minutes of your time. Try it.
At 1:26 PM,
blipey said…
Blipey: So, what specific educational lessons and state criteria are we getting from your ID introductions?
JoeG: You would be getting a lesson in ID reality. It may put a crimp in the nonsensical dogma that teachers mindlessly spew, but that is the point.
Seems sort of vague. Got any specifics that might, say, be on a quiz? In fact, could you write out a short 5 question quiz tht woul be presented after the film?
See lesson plans are specific.
At 2:14 PM,
Joe G said…
As for unsupported assertions- it appears that is all you have.
Hrm, let's look at some of youir refutations.
Very doubtful.
No THAT is a logical fallacy!
The alleged paradox only exists in your bitty little mind.
No, it doesn't.
Dazza:
Sterling stuff - no wonder scientists quake in your presence - who could possible contend with such well-argued viewpoints?!
One must take into consideration what it is I was responding to.
I know that is difficult for you but when one posts unsubstantiated nonsense those responses are appropriate.
Dazza:
You see, this is the exactly the reason why people that support the ID movement, like yourself, will never have any bearing on actual scitenific debate.
Coming from you that is meaningless.
Obviously you have no bearing on anything scientific as you can't even support your position!
Dazza:
Your arguments consist of already-refuted canards, whose refutations you merely close your ears to.
Nice projection.
When any problem is presented with your "theory", all you can say is "It's not a problem! You're stupid!"
Followed by even more projecting!
Oh and thanks for admitting you believe in Noah's Ark as fact - care to elaborate on how we define "kinds"?
I didn't admit that. And that is what science is for- to help us define those "kinds".
You do realize that Karl von Linne (Carolus Linneaus) was looking to do just that (define the Created kinds) when he came up with binomial nomenclature.
But anyways try searching on "baraminology".
And I see you still can't support your position.
Just some evidence that single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organisms...
At 2:25 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey asserts:
Thank you for admitting you know nothing about how education works.
Coming from a clown, a clue-less clown at that, that is a hollow statement.
The principal or district office would need to approve the content of your presentation.
OK.
As a little experiment try walking into your neighborhood school and giving any sort of program at all. It doesn't have to be your little film, try something more mainstream and uncontroversial. You'll find that you have to answer all the questions you're avoiding here. Not because you want to teach id in schools, but because you want to teach anything in schools.
But I have already made such a presentation. It went very well.
I guess I answered all their questions correctly. And guess what? I will be making more of such presentations.
BTW buttbreath I don't want to teach ID in schools. I just don't want dogma presented as reality especially when that dogma is obviouly nonsense.
Got any specifics that might, say, be on a quiz?
1) Is ID based on religion? (or is it religious/ a religion)
2) Is ID based on scientific data?
3) Is sheer dumb luck really a valid explanation for all we observe?
4) What predictions can be made from the design inference?
5) Is ID anti-evolution or anti-the blind watchmaker?
However this is moot and pretty much proves that Erik cannot follow along.
At 3:24 PM,
Joe G said…
Before I forget:
Each State in our United States of America has different rules pertaining to education.
And it is pretty much a given that a State on the east coast is not going to follow the example of Missouri.
IOW blipey what holds for MO does not have to be the case for other States.
Then there are ways around having to provide a lesson plan. One way is to approach teachers, principals and school board members and make the presentation to them. If it is good enough they will do the rest just to get you to make the same presentation to their students.
At 3:34 PM,
Dazza McTrazza said…
And I see you still can't support your position.
Just some evidence that single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organisms...
But wait! You have previously said that evolution occurred after the noble designer put everything here - so you have exactly the same problem! You support your position that single-celled organisms can evolve into anything other than single-celled life OR that a designer put non-single celled organisms here, and we'll start talking - after all yours is the minorty view :)
And that is what science is for- to help us define those "kinds".
Really? Science is supposed to determine what the Bible was refrring to? I sort of thought that would be the realm of archaeology and/or theology. I wonder why everyone conflates ID with creationism?
One must take into consideration what it is I was responding to.
I know that is difficult for you but when one posts unsubstantiated nonsense those responses are appropriate
Ah well - then I shall just say to every point you make that "You're wrong!" This should perfectly refute your position, by your own standards, because, the ideas you have are "unsubstantiated nonsense" that require no detailed response. Hey! Maybe every scientist in the world could do that... imagine the progress we'd make if we all just shut our ears and said, "That's nonsense!" when someone disagrees.
But anyways try searching on "baraminology".
Hrm - I did and suprise (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology):
"Scientists consider Baraminology, like all of creation science, to be pseudoscience and unfit to be presented as science."
I wonder why you'd present a pseudoscientific concept here? It seems so unlike you...
At 3:38 PM,
Dazza McTrazza said…
1) Is ID based on religion? (or is it religious/ a religion)
2) Is ID based on scientific data?
3) Is sheer dumb luck really a valid explanation for all we observe?
4) What predictions can be made from the design inference?
5) Is ID anti-evolution or anti-the blind watchmaker?
Oooo - can I have a go?
(1) Yes - see Judge Jones' decision at Kitzmiller.
(2) No - hence the lack of any ID papers.
(3) Absoutely not - although I have yet to see someone who says it is.
(4) The same as those with evolution - except you get to make Christians happy.
(5) ID is anti whatever it needs to be keep the Big Tent happy.
If you think I'm wrong on any of these answers I will cheerfully await your references.
At 4:54 PM,
Joe G said…
1) Is ID based on religion? (or is it religious/ a religion)
Dazza:
Oooo - can I have a go?
(1) Yes - see Judge Jones' decision at Kitzmiller.
Funny because if the Dover school board actually knew about ID and wasn't religiously motivated, that "decision" would have been much different.
Does ID say anything about worship- who, how, why, when or where to worship?
No
Does ID say anything about giving service to?
Again No.
Is ID beholden to any religious texts?
No.
Does ID require a belief in "God"?
No.
IOW anyone who says that ID = religion obviously knows very little about either.
JJ had his mind made up before the trial. He didn't even listen to Behe or Minnich and took the anti-ID crowd at its word.
Behe responds to Jones
2) Is ID based on scientific data?
Dazza:
(2) No - hence the lack of any ID papers.
And what of the lack of papers demonstrating anything other than wobbling stability? And that lack of papers that would demonstrate any of the grand claims made by evolutionists surely should also count against it.
But I digress. Gonzalez has several papers that deal with the design inference. One is titled "Wonderful Eclipses", and was the impetus for "The Privileged Planet". That book also contains more of his published work that led him to the design inference.
Then there is Dr Axe- ID in perr review
3) Is sheer dumb luck really a valid explanation for all we observe?
(3) Absoutely not - although I have yet to see someone who says it is.
But sheer dumb luck is all you have in the absence of a designer or Creator.
Well I guess you could try to pull some multiverse scenario out of your ass.
Feel free to correct me if you think your position doesn't rely heavily, if not entirely, on sheer dumb luck or the multiverse scenario from your anus.
4) What predictions can be made from the design inference?
(4) The same as those with evolution - except you get to make Christians happy.
Wrong again. Imagine that. This shows that DM needs to at least watch those videos.
TPP makes specific predictions based on the design inference.
5) Is ID anti-evolution or anti-the blind watchmaker?
(5) ID is anti whatever it needs to be keep the Big Tent happy.
0 for 5!!! You rock dude!
ID is only anti-the blind watchmaker thesis. This is outlined, stated and gone over in "Darwinism, Design and Public Education". Which, if you remember, is one of the books I recommended.
At 4:56 PM,
blipey said…
Each State in our United States of America has different rules pertaining to education.
And it is pretty much a given that a State on the east coast is not going to follow the example of Missouri.
IOW blipey what holds for MO does not have to be the case for other States.
Then there are ways around having to provide a lesson plan. One way is to approach teachers, principals and school board members and make the presentation to them. If it is good enough they will do the rest just to get you to make the same presentation to their students.
Oh, Joe.
First. Care to let us know which Christian Private School you did your presentation for? That way we can call and check and see what was presented and how it went. If it did truly go well, then maybe we can book you in our schools.
Secondly, I have performed thousands of programs in schools in 46 states--including yours. I've performed for schools in all four of the big curriculum states. Do you know what those are? Do you know why they are relevant to this discussion?
I've performed for kindergartens, for middle schools, for high schools. I've taught classes in over a dozen states for 6 year olds and teenagers. If you're really interested, I can send you the materials. Just let me know, I'll email them to you.
You say you just have to ask the teacher. Great, that's true as far as it goes. But, he/she still has to present a lesson plan to the administration (part of their job and all). So, they may write it for you, but you still had to give them the info for it.
So, what is that specific info? If you don't have it, get it from the teacher at the school you presented at. They'll be happy to let you have a copy, especially if it went as well as you say it did. Teachers love good programs and share that info with their friends and colleagues.
For example, my show this past year received a 96% approval rating. Many of the schools I had not been at before have rebooked me-yes, because they thought it was entertaining, but also because the educational content and standards were set out, easy to use, and practical.
I'm not asking for anything that is any way controversial or even uncommon. Why is it that you can't provide a simple lesson plan?
At 5:00 PM,
blipey said…
Does ID require a belief in "God"?
Hmmm.
Does ID require a belief in a supernatural designer?
IMO this is yes, because of the infinite regression issue. But feel free to refute that...with logic, not just saying it isn't so.
Is god equivalent to a supernatural being?
Yes.
ID is therefor religious in nature.
At 5:08 PM,
Joe G said…
And I see you still can't support your position.
Just some evidence that single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organisms...
But wait! You have previously said that evolution occurred after the noble designer put everything here - so you have exactly the same problem!
I take it you aren't going to present the data I requested.
You support your position that single-celled organisms can evolve into anything other than single-celled life OR that a designer put non-single celled organisms here, and we'll start talking - after all yours is the minorty view :)
I don't hold that position. There isn't any science that would support that position.
And if the alleged majority view can't support their position it pretty much shows the majority is FoS.
And that is what science is for- to help us define those "kinds".
Really? Science is supposed to determine what the Bible was refrring to?
Science is supposed to help us figure out reality by any and all means possible.
I wonder why everyone conflates ID with creationism?
Not everyone. Only those who are ignorant of both conflate the two.
But anyways try searching on "baraminology".
Hrm - I did and suprise (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology):
No surprise. Wikipedia isn't known for its honesty and it definitely isn't an authority.
The following would have been a better choice:
The Current Status of Baraminology
And again Linne was searching for the Created Kinds- was he or was he not conducting science?
Can anyone at Wikipedia demonstrate that a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into anything else but single-celled organisms? Or is pseudo-science the best they can muster?
At 5:32 PM,
Joe G said…
Talk about making it up as you go!!! LoL:
Does ID require a belief in "God"?
Hmmm.
Does ID require a belief in a supernatural designer?
IMO this is yes, because of the infinite regression issue.
But even your position has an "infinite regression issue".
That would mean that even your position requires something beyond nature- ie supernatural.
What ID does say is that if the data leads us to the metaphysical then so be it. And I say well it pretty much has to. That is if natural processes only exist in nature (true) and therefore natural processes can't be responsible for the origin of nature.
Is god equivalent to a supernatural being?
Yes.
But is a supernatural being the equivalent of "God"?
No.
ID is therefor religious in nature.
But ID doesn't say anything about the designer.
IOW you are still an ID ignoramous.
At 5:38 PM,
blipey said…
How do we know things are designed?
At 5:40 PM,
Joe G said…
Care to let us know which Christian Private School you did your presentation for? That way we can call and check and see what was presented and how it went.
Not a chance. You get nothing.
If it did truly go well, then maybe we can book you in our schools.
Not interested.
You say you just have to ask the teacher.
I didn't say that.
Why is it that you can't provide a simple lesson plan?
Correction- I won't. Not to you. You get nothing. You can't support your position and clog my blog with your stupidity, eat kak.
BTW- I'm not DaveScot and I will happily live with the consequences...
At 5:44 PM,
blipey said…
Right, the program you presented was the same as all the times you embarrassed scientists in debate?
We'll just have to take you on your word. No problem. I'm sure you'll be providing me those references when I show up at your door as well?
Consequences and all.
At 5:47 PM,
blipey said…
Blipey: You say you just have to ask the teacher.
JoeG: I didn't say that.
a little further (but not that much) upthread:
JoeG: Then there are ways around having to provide a lesson plan. One way is to approach teachers...
Hmmmm.
At 6:07 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey, you twisted fuck. What is wrong with you?
Approaching teachers, principals and school boards is not the same as just having to ask teachers.
the program you presented was the same as all the times you embarrassed scientists in debate?
No. Only a moron would think so.
I'm sure you'll be providing me those references when I show up at your door as well?
No, not a chance. But I'm sure the meeting will go well anyway.
At 6:22 PM,
Joe G said…
How do we know things are designed?
By applying tried-n-true design detection techniques, for starters.
The criteria for inferring design from the microscopic biological evidence is as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book [I]Darwin 's Black Box[/I]: [b]"Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: [I]the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components[/I] "[/b] (emphasis added)
Dr Behe responding to JJ:
JJ sez:
(1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation.
It does no such thing. The Court’s opinion ignores, both here and elsewhere, the distinction between an implication of a theory and the theory itself. As I testified, when it was first proposed the Big Bang theory struck many scientists as pointing to a supernatural cause. Yet it clearly is a scientific theory, because it is based entirely on physical data and logical inferences. The same is true of intelligent design.
At 6:23 PM,
blipey said…
Blipey: the program you presented was the same as all the times you embarrassed scientists in debate?
JoeG: No. Only a moron would think so.
Blipey: I'm sure you'll be providing me those references when I show up at your door as well?
JoeG: No, not a chance.
So they do share a trait? As I said...
At 6:26 PM,
blipey said…
I didn't claim that you said that was the ONLY way to get a program taught. You did claim that it would be as easy as, say, approaching a teacher. This is the portrayal of your statement that I have made.
If you were to approach a teacher, the rest of my argument follows. Stop avoiding the issue. What is the lesson plan? From you or the teacher, either one will do.
At 6:27 PM,
blipey said…
Do you think it is fair to say that we know things are designed because we have a pretty good idea of the skill set of human beings?
At 6:51 PM,
blipey said…
Just occurred to me and I thought I should mention it because I don't want you to get in trouble.
Is it okay for you to mention that you have super-ultra-secret, crackerjack decoder clearance on an (semi) open forum like this?
We wouldn't want NSA or anyone to come down on ya. So, shhh. Hush it up and we'll all forget.
Or maybe you can actually travel somewhere and cap us when we know too much. OOOOOOOHHHHH.
You are a riot.
At 8:35 AM,
blipey said…
Hey, just in case you're not paying attention (and who knows if that is the case in light of your moderation policy):
Would it be fair to say that we know things are designed because we have great idea of what the skill set of human beings is (and has been)?
And hopefully the other comments I put in as well....
At 10:06 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
Do you think it is fair to say that we know things are designed because we have a pretty good idea of the skill set of human beings?
Nope.
You do realize that humans are not the only designing agencies we know of...
Ever hear of SETI? Ever see a beaver dam? How about a bee hive or ant colony?
We don't need to know anything about the designer(s) in order to infer design.
All we really need is to know what nature, operating freely, is capable of and couple that with the knowledge of what designing agencies are capable of.
At 10:33 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
You did claim that it would be as easy as, say, approaching a teacher.
The following is what I said:
Then there are ways around having to provide a lesson plan. One way is to approach teachers, principals and school board members and make the presentation to them. If it is good enough they will do the rest just to get you to make the same presentation to their students.
IOW once again your twisted little brain has it wrong.
blipey:
From you or the teacher, either one will do.
Why would I have the teacher's lesson plan?
You are just one stupid son-of-a-bitch.
And thank you for fulfilling my predictions.
At 4:32 PM,
blipey said…
Are you saying that SETI itself is a designing agent? Or could you be saying that there are definitely aliens out there that we have contacted and we know they design things?
Once again, a riot. Laugh a minute kind of stuff.
Beavers make dams. How do we know this? Think real hard.
At 6:21 PM,
Joe G said…
Are you saying that SETI itself is a designing agent?
No.
Or could you be saying that there are definitely aliens out there that we have contacted and we know they design things?
No.
Beavers make dams.
Yes they do. Did you have a point?
My point is if we have never seen a beaver nor a beaver dam in our life AND had some education pertaining to what nature, operating freely is capable of, when we came upon our first beaver dam we would infer intentional design.
Only an imbecile or an evolutionist (hard to tell them apart) wouldn't infer design in that scenario.
At 6:28 PM,
blipey said…
My point is if we have never seen a beaver nor a beaver dam in our life AND had some education pertaining to what nature, operating freely is capable of, when we came upon our first beaver dam we would infer intentional design.
Why? In what way? What tools would we use to distinguish a beaver dam from nature? Give us the xact process by which we would conclude, without doubt, that it was designed.
At 7:53 AM,
Joe G said…
My point is if we have never seen a beaver nor a beaver dam in our life AND had some education pertaining to what nature, operating freely is capable of, when we came upon our first beaver dam we would infer intentional design.
Why?
Because we don't have any experience with nature, operating freely, doing such a thing.
In what way?
One would notice counterflow is present.
What tools would we use to distinguish a beaver dam from nature?
Ummm a beaver dam is part of nature. However counterflow would lead us to the design inference.
However the tool to use is observation coupled with our current state of knowledge. IOW the explanatory filter could be used.
The teeth marks on the trees and the remaining tree trunks would be one observation.
Then there would be the well-placed mud.
Both are indicators of counterflow. However I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
And that inference could be falsified if we ever observed, for example, a landslide creating a similar structure. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that is how science operates.
So I take it you can't support the theory of evolution nor tell us why you are an evolutionist. Or is it that I am once again correct? That you are an evo because you are a blind follower of clueless scientists.
At 12:16 PM,
blipey said…
JoeG: IOW the explanatory filter could be used.
This is exciting. Please use the explanatory filter on this beaver dam example. Lay it out for us. You will be the first person to use the filter successfully. Ever. That has to be exciting. We're waiting.
At 4:03 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
Please use the explanatory filter on this beaver dam example.
I already laid it out for you. Are you telling me that you are too stupid to put it together?
blipey:
You will be the first person to use the filter successfully. Ever.
That is false. Do you really think that your ignorance passes for a valid argument?
At 4:29 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey,
How do you think archaeologists determine whether or not an object is an artifact?
At 1:17 AM,
blipey said…
Archaeologists have a fantastic grasp on what human beings have been able to do in the past. They have pretty good idea what the developmental progress of the human race has been. When they see something that has obvious use to a human being, they call "human design" on it and put it in a museum.
Your laying out of the EF consisted of:
1. Beaver Dam is seen.
2. Haven't seen one before.
3. So beaver dam was designed.
That's a really good use of the EF.
However, that would also work in this case:
1. Neat rock formation.
2. Haven't seen it before.
3. So rock formation is designed.
That's really stupid.
At 7:13 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
Archaeologists have a fantastic grasp on what human beings have been able to do in the past.
How did they get that way? I say via research into what nature, operating freely, can produce coupled with their knowledge of what designing agencies can produce.
So I take it you have no idea how archaeologists determine an artifact from a rock. That's what I thought. Thanks.
blipey:
When they see something that has obvious use to a human being, they call "human design" on it and put it in a museum.
So they don't really know whether or not a human designed it.
blipey:
Your laying out of the EF consisted of:
1. Beaver Dam is seen.
2. Haven't seen one before.
3. So beaver dam was designed.
That is false and thank you for once again demonstrating that you cannot follow along.
The following is what I laid out:
Ummm a beaver dam is part of nature. However counterflow would lead us to the design inference.
However the tool to use is observation coupled with our current state of knowledge. IOW the explanatory filter could be used.
The teeth marks on the trees and the remaining tree trunks would be one observation.
Then there would be the well-placed mud.
Both are indicators of counterflow. However I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
And that inference could be falsified if we ever observed, for example, a landslide creating a similar structure. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that is how science operates.
The first node in the EF asks whether or not the structure in question had to happen- was it caused by law or regularity?
The next node asks if chance could account for it.
The final node then asks if it is specified.
The first node is passed because we don't see those dams appearing regularly, via some law.
The second node is passed because we have never observed any chance event constructiing such a structure.
At the third node everything comes together and the counterflow becomes to overpowering to ignore.
BTW, your stupidity is only matched by your ignorance.
At 8:04 AM,
Joe G said…
Here ya go blipey- cure some of that ignorance:
How archaeologists detect design
At 12:56 PM,
blipey said…
Your use of the clue "teeth marks" speaks to how we don;t look to nature to determine if a beaver built a dam.
1. We know that beavers have teeth.
2. We see that there are teeth marks on the wood.
3. We can propose that the beaver is responsible for the teeth marks.
4. We then try to observe beavers in order to see if they do indeed make dams.
The key here is not that we observe nature, but that we observe beavers. We infer design after step 3 because of what we know about beavers. We then test this inference in step 4.
Seriously.
At 1:02 PM,
blipey said…
From your link, Joe:
Artifacts are contrasted to natural objects; they are products of human actions.
This brings us back to how do we know that they are human made? See beaver example above.
Also:
When a person intends to make an object, his productive intention has as its content some description of the intended object: the agent intends to make an object of a certain kind. An author's intention “ties” to an artifact a number of predicates which determine the intended character of the object.
This speaks to how we identify artifacts by studying what the author's intention for the artifact was.
In fact, you should probably read the links you provide before actually providing them. That entire article really just supports my position that in order to study design, we need to know something about the designer.
Try again.
At 8:09 PM,
Joe G said…
Your use of the clue "teeth marks" speaks to how we don;t look to nature to determine if a beaver built a dam.
You are sooo stupid. It has NOTHING to do with beavers.
It has EVERYTHING to do with what nature, opertaing freely, can produce vs. what intelligent, designing agencies are capable of producing.
Counterflow is prettey much the same thing as work in the linked to article on artifacts. THAT is how artifactuality is determined- is it present or not.
With beaver dams it is present in the forms I have already mentioned.
It would not matter to the initial investigation who built it. Making that determination would take more research.
That entire article really just supports my position that in order to study design, we need to know something about the designer.
That's wrong. The only way to make any determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question. If we already knew the designer we wouldn't have a design inference- design would be a given- duh.
And in the absence of direct observation or designer input we may never know the true intention but we can always make one up that suits us.
Stonehenge- don't know who designed it or why- yet we know it was designed, ie that nature, operating freely, did not put it there.
That alone refutes your nonsense and proves that you can see whatever you want in whatever you read.
At 11:55 PM,
blipey said…
Stonehenge is an artifact made by human beings. Which human beings? Don't know. Is it plausible to say it was made by humans, though? Yes. Why? We know that human beings have made calendars, astrolabes, religious icons, etc. Stonehenge very likely falls into one of these categories.
We have inferred design based on these things, not by looking at nature.
Otherwise we would have to infer that the potato which looks like Jimmy Carter is also designed. That is stupid.
If you want to differentiate the potato example from the Stonehenge one, you're going to have to provide the math. Please do.
At 10:51 AM,
Joe G said…
Stonehenge is an artifact made by human beings.
It may have been, but we don't know. We also don't know who designed it.
Is it plausible to say it was made by humans, though?
Yes, but we don't have any experience with humans building such structures over 4,000 years ago.
We have inferred design based on these things, not by looking at nature.
Thanks for exposing your ignoarnce pertaining to archaeology. Ya see archaeologists have to always consider what nature, operating freely, can produce, BEFORE making their design inference.
Otherwise we would have to infer that the potato which looks like Jimmy Carter is also designed.
That you would even think such a thing further expsoes your stupidity.
Ya see blipey everything we know about Stonehenge, or think we know, came from studying the structure!
And THAT is what I have been saying for years.
At 1:12 PM,
blipey said…
Studying the structure, yes.
Studying how nature could have made the structure, no.
JoeG: Yes, but we don't have any experience with humans building such structures (Stonehenge) over 4,000 years ago.
Wow. Pyramids? There are smaller stone structures found all over the world. Humans have ben moving stone around for quite some time, Joe. Yes even 5,000 years ago.
As for the potato as Nixon bit:
This is not qualitatively different than finding a ring of stones on the plains. They're both weird. They're both a little shocking. If all we have to do is look at what we know nature has done in the past, these are identical situations: nature has done neither--how do you propose we differentiate them? Do the math.
At 3:12 PM,
Joe G said…
Studying the structure, yes.
Studying how nature could have made the structure, no.
But what prevents nature, operating freely, from putting such a structure together?
My point is that we know how to differentiate between nature, operating freely and what intelligent, designing agencies can do. We have specific investigative processes that allow us to do just that.
So what is it that prevents us from using those tried and true processes on biological organisms?
What makes biology so exclusive to design?
JoeG: Yes, but we don't have any experience with humans building such structures (Stonehenge) over 4,000 years ago.
Wow. Pyramids? There are smaller stone structures found all over the world. Humans have ben moving stone around for quite some time, Joe. Yes even 5,000 years ago.
Right, but who designed them? And how do we know that nature, operating freely, didn't produce them?
And we are just now figuring out how Stonehenge might have been constructed. The pyramids are in a similar state.
Only by studying them were we able to make any determinations about them.
At 4:09 PM,
blipey said…
JoeG: My point is that we know how to differentiate between nature, operating freely and what intelligent, designing agencies can do.
Yes. We know what intelligence can do because we've seen intelligence in action. We don't know what intelligence can do because of what we haven't observed in nature.
Back to the potato. We've never seen nature make a potato that looks like a human being. So, how do you determine that the potato hasn't been designed?
We have no knowledge of intelligence being able to intelligently grow a potato to look like Nixon, therefor we assume that nature did it--not the other way around.
At 5:01 PM,
Joe G said…
JoeG: My point is that we know how to differentiate between nature, operating freely and what intelligent, designing agencies can do.
Yes. We know what intelligence can do because we've seen intelligence in action.
Yes we have. And we know they can produce information rich and data processing systems.
We have never observed nature, operating freely, produce such systems.
We don't know what intelligence can do because of what we haven't observed in nature.
Only you could come up with that and actually post it. LoL!!!
One more time:
My point is that we know how to differentiate between nature, operating freely and what intelligent, designing agencies can do.
Ya see blipey if we observe something that we know nature, operating freely, couldn't produce, what's left?
Then once we make that determination, that nature, operating freely, couldn't produce it (whatever it is we are investigating), we adjust our investigation accordingly.
Ya see it matters a great deal to any investigation whether or not the object in question arose via intentional design or nature, operating freely.
Back to the potato.
If you have such a potato bring it with you when you come to get that list of scientists I can't remember.
Ya see clowny, science is not done via nonsensical scenarios. It requires an observation.
And IF something looks designed then someone should at least be able to investigate that possibility. Yet evolutionitwits would rather us wallow in evolutionary ignorance.
BTW blipey, the EF starts out assuming nature, operating freely, "didit". Design is only inferred once nature, operating freely, has been reasonably ruled out (science isn't about proof).
At 1:05 PM,
blipey said…
It isn't a nonsense scenario, doofus. Scenarios like it make local papers around the world on a weekly basis. The potato that looks like Nixon, the Frito that looks like Jesus, the pumpkin with face of John Lenon on it, the Virgin Mary appearing on a stone wall, etc.
The point is that nature can produce things that apparently have a lot of CSI (to use a stupid term). Why do we not conclude that these are designed by intelligence? Still waiting for the math.
You're goign to have to have a fool-proof, repeatable set of numbers that allow us to eliminate nature froim the equation. What are they?
At 9:12 AM,
Joe G said…
It isn't a nonsense scenario, doofus. Scenarios like it make local papers around the world on a weekly basis.
Until I can hold and examine the potato it is a nonsensical hypothetical scenario.
The point is that nature can produce things that apparently have a lot of CSI (to use a stupid term).
First CSI is only a stupid term to the willfully ignorant. And again if something appears to have CSI one should be allowed to check into that.
Why do we not conclude that these are designed by intelligence?
Most likely after further investigation what was "seen" was only in the eyes of the beholder.
At 12:24 AM,
blipey said…
So what is the rigorous test for "eye of the beholder"?
Is there some sort of mathematical formula for that or do we just guess?
And while we're at it, what's the TECHNICAL definition of CSI?
And an you show us a chart showing the amount of CSI contained in some sample of common household objects? We'll need to decide what the threshold of CSI is for determining design.
For example, a car should have more CSI in it than say, a grapevine, correct? How can we calculate that?
At 9:59 AM,
Joe G said…
So what is the rigorous test for "eye of the beholder"?
The same tests that archaeologists use.
Is there some sort of mathematical formula for that or do we just guess?
We do as archaeologists do. We look for counterflow (what they call "work").
You do realize that we do have and use tried and true design detection techniques. Scientists have employed them succesfully for many years.
However it actually takes observing the object first hand. Only a dumbass clown would think otherwise.
But thanks for continuing to demonstrate your ignorance on the subject.
And while we're at it, what's the TECHNICAL definition of CSI?
Read "No Free Lunch" by Wm Dembski.
I am here to discuss not to teach.
We'll need to decide what the threshold of CSI is for determining design.
Read the book. ALL CSI indicates design.
For example, a car should have more CSI in it than say, a grapevine, correct?
Why? Can humans design and build a car? Yes. Can humans design and build a grapevine? No.
At 10:02 AM,
Joe G said…
Still waiting for ONE evo to present any scientific data which would demonstrate they accept the ToE on a scientific basis rather than just on faith alone.
I get the feeling such data will not be presented.
At 9:05 AM,
Joe G said…
You're goign to have to have a fool-proof, repeatable set of numbers that allow us to eliminate nature froim the equation.
If you had known anything about science you would have known that scientific inferences are tentative. IOW there isn't any "proof" and there isn't any "fool-proof" methods. But we do the best we can with the available data.
The point is that nature can produce things that apparently have a lot of CSI
Name one.
Post a Comment
<< Home