Adding Entities- What is the Purpose?
-
Yesterday I posted a quote by Sir Isaac Newton stating the first rule of science:
Now why would we add entities? Well for one because they are required. Ya see one of the three basic questions that science asks is "How did it come to be this way"- "it" being the thing being investigating. It is why archaeologists add a designer when they determine they are looking at an artifact- it changes everything!
Adding a designer is the difference between geology and archaeology- IOW it makes a huge difference as it changes everything.
With biology Richard Dawkins and others have weighed in and correctly stated that we would be looking at a totally different type of biology- that alone is huge.
So there you have it- why we add entities-> requirement and it changes the investigation.
Yesterday I posted a quote by Sir Isaac Newton stating the first rule of science:
"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."- Sir Isaac Newton
Now why would we add entities? Well for one because they are required. Ya see one of the three basic questions that science asks is "How did it come to be this way"- "it" being the thing being investigating. It is why archaeologists add a designer when they determine they are looking at an artifact- it changes everything!
Adding a designer is the difference between geology and archaeology- IOW it makes a huge difference as it changes everything.
With biology Richard Dawkins and others have weighed in and correctly stated that we would be looking at a totally different type of biology- that alone is huge.
So there you have it- why we add entities-> requirement and it changes the investigation.
posted by Joe G @ 7:28 AM
13 Comments:
At 7:48 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Adding a designer is the difference between geology and archaeology- IOW it makes a huge difference as it changes everything.
Except for the fact that as the earth was designed geology is no different to archaeology. Both are examining things that have designers.
According to you that is.
You keep saying that there is no way the solar system could have formed without intelligent intervention, therefore the Earth is designed.
It is why archaeologists add a designer when they determine they are looking at an artifact- it changes everything!
Except they already know that the designer is a human. So the entity they add already has lots known about it including the ability to create things like the artefacts they are discovering.
Unlike the "intelligent designer" which the only thing we know (as ID is not about the designer) is that the designer designs. Beyond that, who knows.
So adding an entity we know (and can know) nothing about really adds just that to our knowledge base - nothing at all.
Newton's crowing achievement was to *remove* entities. Angels were no longer required to push planets in their orbits when he was done.
At 7:54 AM,
Joe G said…
Just because the eartyh was designed does not mean that geological processes do not take place.
You are a moron and could not argue a valid point if your life depended on it.
OM:
So adding an entity we know (and can know) nothing about really adds just that to our knowledge base - nothing at all.
Of course it does- it changes the investigation you moron.
So tell me why do you think your ignorance is meaningful discourse?
And that is why you are no longer welcome here- you have nothing to add and you think your ignorance means something.
At 8:22 AM,
Joe G said…
And BTW archaeologists do not know the designers are human. And the only way to find out anything about the designer(s) is by studying the stuff they left behind.
At 9:14 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
And BTW archaeologists do not know the designers are human.
Citation please.
At 9:16 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Just because the eartyh was designed does not mean that geological processes do not take place.
And those processes are as designed as the earth.
So either
A) The earth was designed and geological processes have hidden the evidence.
B) The earth was designed and geological processes have not yet hidden all the evidence.
If it is A) Joe then how do you know that the Earth is designed if there is no physical evidence?
If it's B) Joe, what is that evidence?
At 10:34 AM,
Joe G said…
Just because the eartyh was designed does not mean that geological processes do not take place.
OM:
And those processes are as designed as the earth.
Citation please. As all rational people know accidents and random shit- ie non-designed stuff- are still allowed in a desgn scenario.
OM:
A) The earth was designed and geological processes have hidden the evidence.
Nope
OM:
B) The earth was designed and geological processes have not yet hidden all the evidence.
Nope.
Geological processes on earth occur only AFTER the earth is formed. Geological processes do not account for its origins.
At 10:37 AM,
Joe G said…
And BTW archaeologists do not know the designers are human.
OM:
Citation please.
A citation for your ignorance? Your ignorance is well documented.
Geez OM just how the fuck can anyone say that an unobserved designer was human just by looking at the artifact?
Again unless you have something to add the remainder of your future posts will be spammed.
At 11:04 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
Citation please
Sure
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1
Geological processes on earth occur only AFTER the earth is formed. Geological processes do not account for its origins.
Ah, then the effect is the earth. What is the entity that you have to add to explain the earth?
Geez OM just how the fuck can anyone say that an unobserved designer was human just by looking at the artifact?
It's an assumption that's reasonable to make as nobody has every observed a non-human designer creating things that humans are known to design.
Unless you have evidence to the contrary?
Again unless you have something to add the remainder of your future posts will be spammed.
So you are happy to create new blog posts off the back of my posts but now you are too cowardly to let me respond.
Whatever.
At 11:35 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
If you really believe this:
"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."
Then why do you add an entity that is not required? When you've shown that evolution is unable to create the life we see about us then that would be the time to add another entity.
But that's not been shown, not in any scientific way anyway. In fact we hardly know anything about evolution at all, at least compared to the level of detail that's there. We've only just scratched the surface in the last 50 years. It's only been a few decades since DNA was discovered!
So you don't understand evolution sufficiently to rule it out as a cause for anything biological just yet. Nobody does.
Yet you rule it out anyway in favour of an entity that did something, somehow, some when but you don't know quite how.
At 11:37 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
So you are happy to create new blog posts off the back of my posts but now you are too cowardly to let me respond.
You have been posting but you have not respnded to the OP. IOW the evidence proves that YOU are the coward. And that is why you are no longer welcome- you say shit and never support it. Then you say I never support what I say yet my blog proves you wrong, again.
Geez OM just how the fuck can anyone say that an unobserved designer was human just by looking at the artifact?
OM:
It's an assumption that's reasonable...
Now it's an ASSUMPTION that is somehow "reasonable"?
Humans could just be duplicating what some other intelligent being did- heck we seem to copy what other animals do (in our technology).
Geological processes on earth occur only AFTER the earth is formed. Geological processes do not account for its origins.
OM:
Ah, then the effect is the earth.
That is one effect.
What is the entity that you have to add to explain the earth?
The evidence says something more than necessity and chance. something that can, at a minimum, plan and design.
But anyway seeing that you are obviously too much of a coward to stay on-topic and support your position- the only two rules I have on my blog- then fuck off.
It does not bother me to post and have no evotards respond. As I said it is obvious that you are too cowardly to stay on topic and too cowardly to actually support the claims of your position so you don't have anything to say to me.
Is that clear enough for you?
At 11:43 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
If you really believe this:
"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."
Then why do you add an entity that is not required?
I don't. I only call upon what is obviously REQUIRED.
However YOU could actually step up and demonstrate that necessity and chance can produce all we observe- sbut you won't because you can't.
OM:
When you've shown that evolution is unable to create the life we see about us then that would be the time to add another entity.
YOU have to show that accumulations of genetic accidents CAN cretae the life we see. So fa you have failed miserably- you can't even demonstrate that accumulations of genetic accidents can construct useful, functional multi-part systems.
Your position is a total failure.
OM:
So you don't understand evolution sufficiently to rule it out as a cause for anything biological just yet.
Liar- ID is not anti-evolution and your position doesn't have any evidence that genetic accidents can accumulate in such a way as to do what you claim.
You are a liar and a loser.
At 10:31 AM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
It is extremely important to determine whether life is caused by intelligent agency or random mess. Without that knowledge, medical advances may be fighting an uphill battle against an intelligent agency that they dont even know about.
Thats what science does. It learns things. You say ALL life and evolution is explained by random acident. I say ALL life and evolution requires intelligent agency. We could not be further apart, so it should be easy for you to produce at least something proving your case.
I have to agree with Joe in that you have failed miserably to present any scientific backing for your insane claims that random chaos leads to ongoing functional improvement.
It says on Ogre's blog that opponents will be "crushed with the power of science".
Awesome. When does the science part start? All I've seen so far is boring excuses to avoid it.
At 6:50 PM,
CBD said…
IA
I have to agree with Joe in that you have failed miserably to present any scientific backing for your insane claims that random chaos leads to ongoing functional improvement.
Who claimed that?
Post a Comment
<< Home