Open question to Sklansky and/or his FanBoys

[Evo-Creationist]

Mr. Sklansky-

I have read through your 50k challenge and sincerely appreciate the sublime nuance it has taken to propose it.

You are obviously quite grounded in your absolute belief that there is no God.
You are much more educated than I and most. So to you and your fans I have this question:

Using Occam's Razor (or Ockham), what would be the simplest proof of intelligent design to the overwhelming majority of reasonable scientists? Having that, these scientists would be able to publish this evidence as a proven law of science not a theory.

You can even have a stab at this if it is more suitable:

Using Occam's Razor: what would be the simplest proof to you personally that God exists and is the architect of the universe and everything in it.
You would then need to publish your evidence thereby eliminating an epiphany or devine communication.

Below is the Razor to frame the debate for those who may not be familiar:

Occam’s Razor: A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known.

This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You are obviously quite grounded in your absolute belief that there is no God.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe obvious to you but completely wrong.

Fanboy

[Evo-Creationist]

Pardon my newb-ness. Am I to assume that he does not absolutely believe that there is no God? Am I assuming too much from his many posts?

All the better framework for the propostion, agreed?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Pardon my newb-ness. Am I to assume that he does not absolutely believe that there is no God? Am I assuming too much from his many posts?

All the better framework for the propostion, agreed?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry that was the only bit that was even wrong.

Fanboy

[Evo-Creationist]

Thanks for the comment. It is appreciated.

Maybe a better question is this: is David Sklanksy an atheist?

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Using Occam's Razor (or Ockham), what would be the simplest proof of intelligent design

[/ QUOTE ]

I think establishing an organism with free will and volition would go a long way towards achieving your objective.

You could then cede that it is only really through strokes of chance that life proceeds, but strokes of chance which are recognized and grasped, i.e. selected and chosen.

But, no matter how I turn the issue around in my mind, it all keeps coming back to the question of whether life developed from the inside or the outside. We have the reductionists saying that an organism developed fangs and claws and turned into a carnivore and the creationists saying it was the emergence of a carnivorous instinct from within, causing the fangs and claws to develop.

Unless we could understand what is going on inside, I don't see how the creationist viewpoint can ever be scientifically proven. It may be true, but unprovable. Whereas the development from without through randomness could be proven.

Since science only proposes theories that can be proven, I think the whole question of intelligent design or creationism falls outside its field of inquiry.

For my own reasons, I happen to be a creationist. But I've resigned myself to the fact that it can never be conclusively proven. At best I can imply some things from my own experience and draw conclusions, but that's about it. Trying to prove what's happening on the inside is like trying to prove what someone is thinking. I think any level of philosophic integrity demands that conclusion.

[Evo-Creationist]

Thanks, John. My objective here is simply to pose a question that forces a scientific mind to be able to recogninze when the search for truth takes an unexpected turn.

If science is the study of and search for truth, then by using Occam's Razor, what would prove Intelligent Design to those that feel they have collected evidence that has never supported it?

Further, if an atheist does not believe in God because there is no evidence, what is the simplest evidence needed to prove the existence of Intelligent Design?

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
...what is the simplest evidence needed to prove the existence of Intelligent Design?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're underestimating what it means to actually prove something. Barring objectifiable and verifiable data, to actually prove ID, you'd have to disprove randomness as a possibility, along with every other possibility.

In other words, If God appeared in the sky and explained the whole thing - that would still not qualify as proof. I'm sure more people would then believe in the theory of ID, but there would still remain the possibility of other explanations (magic, illusion, mass delusion, etc...).

If that seems like a daunting and futile task, I'm sure there's plenty of atheists on this board who would agree with you. They're just arguing the inverse, but being asked to meet the same criteria for proof.

[Evo-Creationist]

If God did appear in the sky and explain the whole thing (again) it wouldn't qualify as proof for this propostion. Proof needs to be repeatable and verifiable.
If the central tenet to athesim is 'there is no evidence' then the inverse you suggest must be possible in the mind of a reasonable astute atheist.

Any atheist must believe in the existance of the devine if incontrovertible evidence was presented. Otherwise, they would only prove themselves to be past ignorant to obstinate. I am not proposing they are either.

Therefore, I am asking an atheist or agnostic to credibly suggest what MINIMUM evidence, under Occam's Razor, would suffice to reverse the collective mind of atheism. The question has merit in that assumption.

[valenzuela]

There is a thread I made , its probably on page 2 or 3 Im lloking forward to youre reply.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
If God did appear in the sky and explain the whole thing (again) it wouldn't qualify as proof for this propostion. Proof needs to be repeatable and verifiable.
If the central tenet to athesim is 'there is no evidence' then the inverse you suggest must be possible in the mind of a reasonable astute atheist.

Any atheist must believe in the existance of the devine if incontrovertible evidence was presented. Otherwise, they would only prove themselves to be past ignorant to obstinate. I am not proposing they are either.

Therefore, I am asking an atheist or agnostic to credibly suggest what MINIMUM evidence, under Occam's Razor, would suffice to reverse the collective mind of atheism. The question has merit in that assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you don't think you are going to 'trick' a bunch of us into claiming that it would be easy to PROVE any of these things, and thereby try to claim that we could never be convinced and so faith is the only way. Of course that wouldnt prove it, no more than me dropping a ball proves gravity, at least not in the sense you are using the word prove. But luckily we don't need anything to be PROVEN in such a way, and we'd be fine just having it be exceedingly likely. And yes, God appearing in the sky and telling me to believe in him would make it very likely God existed. The BETTER question is, would it make it over 50%? Hume says no.

[vhawk01]

In other words, dropping a ball is evidence of gravity, but it is ALSO evidence of an infinite number of other theories which posit that a ball would fall under those circumstances. So, we can recognize that it could be any of those, and that gravity is the more likely. God appearing is evidence of God existing AND its evidence I'm hallucinating, evidence I am the victim of a hoax, etc. I don't know which of those would be most likely, at least not without experiencing it.

[jogsxyz]

Whose who believe in god made no assumptions. They just started with the conclusion. Therefore Occam's razor does not apply.

[soon2bepro]

Is it possible? yes, anything is possible when you don't know everything.

Is it likely to happen anytime soon?

No way.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the comment. It is appreciated.

Maybe a better question is this: is David Sklanksy an atheist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Define atheist.

Sklansky is a skeptic. He doesn't see any evidence or indication that would suggest any of the popular Gods is likely to exist.

[Evo-Creationist]

Love to reply. Can't find your point in my thread though.

[Evo-Creationist]

I do not believe I could ever 'trick' anyone into believing anything. I also have no agenda to prove anything to anyone else. As a believer, proof is less important than certainty in my life.

However, I am asking a question that I posed to Richard Dawkins and he has yet to reply. You have also dodged it.

[Evo-Creationist]

Gravity is not a theory, it is a very long standing and well founded law. There is no other theory for the Laws of Gravity.

I asked you if you could possibly state, in a simple and credible way, what proof would convince you of Intelligent Design.

[Evo-Creationist]

Reply to Jog-

Tap, tap, tap, pay attention please. I did not propose that believers user Occam's Razor. I proposed that those who do not believe in God appraoch the answer in that fashion.

And so to you it returns.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
Gravity is not a theory, it is a very long standing and well founded law. There is no other theory for the Laws of Gravity.

I asked you if you could possibly state, in a simple and credible way, what proof would convince you of Intelligent Design.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know better than to respond to people who don't understand that 'law' and 'theory' are jargon specific to science, and that evolution is as much a 'law' as 'gravity'...but i will anyway.

The 'laws' of the universe that we have discovered (that is, the predictive rules that appear to apply to energy and matter) are clearly fully sufficient to explain the standard evolutionary model. Since you are so keen on 'Occam's razor', the answer to your question is: "I would need to see evidence that evolution could not occur without the interference of an outside agency".

[madnak]

Nothing can be proved. So while the answer to your question is "no," the question itself doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but it definitely seems tricky. Why didn't you ask something like "what would be the minimum evidence needed for you to believe in God," or something along those lines? Your use of Occam's Razor is especially suspicious, and the fact you actually know what it means is downright disturbing (given the apparently nonsensical use in your main point).

Don't be surprised if every atheist on this forum approaches you defensively.

By the way, there's no such thing as a "law" any more. "Theory" is the strongest thing that exists in modern science.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Sklansky-

I have read through your 50k challenge and sincerely appreciate the sublime nuance it has taken to propose it.

You are obviously quite grounded in your absolute belief that there is no God.
You are much more educated than I and most. So to you and your fans I have this question:

Using Occam's Razor (or Ockham), what would be the simplest proof of intelligent design to the overwhelming majority of reasonable scientists?

[/ QUOTE ]

An enormous body of observation that fitted its premises, predictions it makes that are borne out by observation and, oh, a few rabbits in the Cambrian wouldn't hurt.

[ QUOTE ]
Having that, these scientists would be able to publish this evidence as a proven law of science not a theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh dear.

[ QUOTE ]
You can even have a stab at this if it is more suitable:

Using Occam's Razor: what would be the simplest proof to you personally that God exists and is the architect of the universe and everything in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we had a really powerful telescope that could see to the furthest reaches of the universe, and it spotted a cluster of stars that spelled out "I dunnit, signed God", I'd consider that decent evidence, although not entirely compelling. Short of that, nothing is going to do the trick. Sorry.

[ QUOTE ]
You would then need to publish your evidence thereby eliminating an epiphany or devine communication.

Below is the Razor to frame the debate for those who may not be familiar:

Occam’s Razor: A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's precisely the operation of Occam's Razor that allows science to proceed without any requirement of an "intelligent designer".

[ QUOTE ]
This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is wrong on many levels.

[ QUOTE ]
and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a clumsy way of saying "don't reinvent the wheel".

[ QUOTE ]
This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."

[/ QUOTE ]

The disagreement is generally over the "equal" bit rather than the simplest bit. Creationists' explanation is very simple.

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but the "equal in other respects" part is much more important than the "fewest entities" part. If the more complicated theory explains more and agrees with observation more closely, it wins.

[madnak]

Oh, I should have read the rest before posting. Exercise in futility, eh? Oh well, at least he seems authentic.

Actually all of Newton's laws turned out to be wrong, or if you prefer, there are exceptions to all of them. The same is true of the laws of thermodynamics. In fact, I don't think there is any scientific law that has survived to the present day unscathed. Maybe that's why they stopped making laws over a hundred years ago...

Really, what is your view of this? Do you think there are still laws, or that there is some "Great Council" of scientists who decides when to admit something as a "law" or "theory?" Because, um, if so you're way off. That's sort of how it was in Newton's time, but like I said, not in the last 100 years.

[jogsxyz]

Assume evolution is proven. That doesn't say anything about god. For all we know god created existence through evolution.

But it does prove that every religion of earth got it wrong about god.

[KUJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
and it spotted a cluster of stars that spelled out "I dunnit, signed God", I'd consider that decent evidence

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be very surprised if this changed very many minds. And I'd be at least a little skeptical of those whose minds it did change.

[Evo-Creationist]

To Madnak -----

You are obviously taking this the most seriously. The difference between law and theory is that is is repeatable and predictable beyond arguing from the exception.

Here is a better explanation from a much more qualified source. The admistrator for Madsci.org should suffice for our ad hoc scientific debate.
(tongue firmly in cheek)

"This is a common question, and a common misconception. Unfortunately I learned it pretty much the same way you did... and didn't really have it corrected until I started digging into the philosophy of science rather recently.

The current consensus among philosophers of science seems to be this:

Laws are generalizations about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. They pertain to observational data. The ability of the ancients to predict eclipses had nothing to do with whether they knew just how they happened; they had a law but not a theory.
Theories are explanations of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn't necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law.
William McComus lists gravity as a modern example of a well-established law for which no really satisfying theory is available. We can use the Law of Gravity, and even correct it for the effects of relativity (General Relativity), but we don't have any consensus notion of how it functions! Is it geometry or gravitons?

Oddly enough, I searched the MadSci site and came up with a carefully- written wrong answer along the hierarchical lines you describe above. Embarassingly, several answers I summoned in my search fall into the misconceptions and traps enumerated by McComus!

We shouldn't blame our experts; as you and I have seen from our own experience, scientists may have fuzzy notions about this sort of distinction because they don't normally have to make the distinction! A working scientists doesn't tend to worry about whether the First Law of Thermodynamics is an explanation, or the Theory of Evolution a statement of observed facts. They work, she uses them, everything's fine, right? But as McComus points out, the cut-and-dried (wrong) way this is usually presented can be pretty deadly, pedagogically."

The use of Occam's razor here is precisley accurate and far from nonsensical.

Here is my reasoning. SETI intercepts a message from outerspace. the message is complex and mathematical. Let's say at least as complex as the message used in Sagan's book "Contact". Occam's Razor directly applies to such a message. However, a message such as I reference is overt and calculated, credible or not. Occam's Razor supposes you explain what you see with collective knowledge until you find contradictory EVIDENCE, not contradictory emotion or opinions.

(careful here now, remember, I am NOT saying I have scientific evidence of Intelligent Design....although I reserve the right to interject some very troublesome examples.)

So, using Occam's Razor, what would be your own minimum standard you would use to accept a new scientific paradigm that placed intelligent design squarely as the cause of evolution?

Contrary to drzen's comments that address nothing but his urgent need to look up "Strawman argument", using Occam's Razor is precisley where this type of new thinking would originate.

Drzen, when you are through with your review of 'strawman', move on to 'sophistical' before you respond. Instead of spending your entire response parsing my argument on a semantic level, perhaps you would be better inspired to actually ponder the question before attacking it's parts while ignoring the debatable tenet.

My question and thread was never designed to prove anything further than most quasi-scientific thinkers would rather regard themselves as correct than question their own assumptions.

The fact that the question is posed by a beleiver has blinded all but Madnak (so far) to the possiblility of actually answering the question with a well thought response.

And in closing to Arahant's cogent response:
(you didn't think I forgot about you did 'ya?)

"Since you are so keen on 'Occam's razor', the answer to your question is: "I would need to see evidence that evolution could not occur without the interference of an outside agency".

This is the very definition of a sophistical argument, for you see, the burden is one you, sir. I can prove the evolution could not have happened without 'outside agency'.

(now be careful here guys and lurkers; read carefully and slowly before you fire off a response and prove your ignorance.)

Arahant: Please cite one, just even one credible example where life has been formed from non-animate material. Your answer supposes one and I wait expectantly.

That is why evolution is a description of intelligent design. It always requires a 'first mover'.

Your move gentlemen.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Gravity is not a theory, it is a very long standing and well founded law. There is no other theory for the Laws of Gravity.

I asked you if you could possibly state, in a simple and credible way, what proof would convince you of Intelligent Design.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is definitely not true, by the way. Theories don't really turn into laws anyway, laws describe different things than theories do. But gravity is not even close to being completely understood and there are various different theories. It is ENTIRELY possible that gravity doesnt exist, it just seems like it does. This is far less likely, though, than the idea that the way we think about gravity is just wrong and some other, similar theory is correct.

And sorry we can't be a stand-in for Richard Dawkins for you. I thought I did answer it. If God came up to me tomorrow and told me he was God, performed some crazy, ridiculous and impossible miracle, I would probably believe. At least I would think God was much more likely. Have to admit I don't really know if it would convince me entirely, since I am fully aware of other possible alternatives.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and it spotted a cluster of stars that spelled out "I dunnit, signed God", I'd consider that decent evidence

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be very surprised if this changed very many minds. And I'd be at least a little skeptical of those whose minds it did change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding? Look at how easy it is to convince most people! Missionaries have had wonderful success with bits of steel and shiny things, they'd have probably batted 1.000 if they had had God's signature.

[vhawk01]

And I am on the edge of my seat in anticipation of your 'troubling examples' of intelligent design.

[Evo-Creationist]

Vhawk -

It is still your move though. You proposed your own ridiculous way out. If God did present Himself to you and propose some miracle, you would 'probably believe'. In the same response you contradict your own minimum evidence.

The point is to respond with what evidence it would take to change the majority of reasonable scientists.

This post is not about what is a 'Law' or a 'Theory'. It is to stimulate in the mind of critical thinkers what minumum evidence would it take for the majority of the scientific community to reverse their paradigms.

As for waiting for my 'troublesome examples' of Intelligent Design, they are reserved for the first cogent response to my exact question. You seem intelligent. Maybe you might stumble across a couple if you honestly and earnestly thought over the answer to the question I continue to pose. I mean that sincerely.

What minum standard, using Occam's Razor, would it take for a credible, atheistic, scientific mind to quickly reverse the thinking of the majority of the secular community?


Still waiting......

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Evo asked me to post in this thread so here goes.


[/ QUOTE ]

Occam was himself a Christian and no doubt would be depressed to find his name used to attack Christianity. This isn't really relevant to anything, just had to get that off my chest.

Two points on this subject:

1. The razor is supposed to help us decide which is a simpler theory. But I see no way to apply it to the question of God vs. evolution. To say one is simpler than the other is to make enormous presuppositions. The razor is primarily intended to help decide something provisionally for procedural reasons about matters that are empirical and can be the subject of experimentation.

2. Science itself, at least modern science, claims it deals only with the empirical. By its own definition it excludes making any statement about the supernatural, positive or negative. Science wasn't always defined so narrowly, but my understanding is that's the way scientists want it. Which puts people like Dawkins in an odd position.

One last observation. I haven't read the book but I saw the movie, Contact. I found it interesting that the Jodie Foster character, after being transported light years from earth and having an interview with an alien, near the end of the movie began to doubt the reality of her experience. I suspect if you had asked her before it happened if she had such an experience would she ever doubt ET she would have been certain she wouldn't. And one final note. Many, perhaps tens of thousands, saw Jesus and His miracles, yet rejected Him. The same is true for many in the OT re miracles.

[drzen]

The usual stuff. Show the creationist a bit of how science works and they whine that you're not playing fair. Well, dur. Science makes its own rules and Goddidit isn't one of them.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Vhawk -

It is still your move though. You proposed your own ridiculous way out. If God did present Himself to you and propose some miracle, you would 'probably believe'. In the same response you contradict your own minimum evidence.

The point is to respond with what evidence it would take to change the majority of reasonable scientists.

This post is not about what is a 'Law' or a 'Theory'. It is to stimulate in the mind of critical thinkers what minumum evidence would it take for the majority of the scientific community to reverse their paradigms.

As for waiting for my 'troublesome examples' of Intelligent Design, they are reserved for the first cogent response to my exact question. You seem intelligent. Maybe you might stumble across a couple if you honestly and earnestly thought over the answer to the question I continue to pose. I mean that sincerely.

What minum standard, using Occam's Razor, would it take for a credible, atheistic, scientific mind to quickly reverse the thinking of the majority of the secular community?


Still waiting......

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh. You are really aggressive, but you seem to be hearing only what you want to hear. What I'm TRYING to say is I don't know what my minimum evidence would be. I gave you my best shot, but its not like "I am 100% certain that this event would make me believe it >50% likely." Your repeated pushing is absurd. I took a guess at how I would respond to some occurance. And really, all evidence would boil down to similar. If it was attributable to god it would look like something impossible, so the other possible explanations are always going to be mental delusion and being conned. I guess the MORE impossible it seemed, the lower the 'being conned' option becomes and probably the more likely the 'god' option, in my estimation.

But you lose a ton of credibility when you make statements like "I'm sure you would come to agree with my assertion if you would only HONESTLY examine the evidence" like your snippet about ID. Poisoning the Well is one of the lowest tricks available.

[Evo-Creationist]

To Notready -

Thanks for accepting my invitation. I appreciate it.

As for Occam, his Razor isn't being used here to attack Christianity. I proposed it as a basic standard to judge the an athiests 'change of heart'.

It is widely, yet inaccurately wielded by quasi-scientistfic atheists to suppose that they actually have a case against ID. When in fact, the greatest scientific minds of the last century inexorably 'bump' into their own sophistical arguments. Or, like 'drzen', they just give up and generalze; digitally rolling their eyes to the hope that the others will write me off as a 'religion nut'.

Gosh, golly. You know the question must be wrong, you just can't articulate a reason. Further, you cannot defend your own false assumptions.

And to Vhawk---

This is your inaccurate quote from my earlier post.

"I'm sure you would come to agree with my assertion if you would only HONESTLY examine the evidence" like your snippet about ID. Poisoning the Well is one of the lowest tricks available."

Yet, you prefaced it by again, 'giving up' and taking a strawman argument with, "You are really aggressive, but you seem to be hearing only what you want to hear."

Nice try on the Poison Well reference. Too bad, though.

My ACTUAL line was, " You seem intelligent. Maybe you might stumble across a couple (of credible answers to the question) if you honestly and earnestly thought over the answer to the question I continue to pose. I mean that sincerely."

Check mate. Wanna play again, strawman?

Stillllll waiting.....

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
It is widely, yet inaccurately wielded by quasi-scientistfic atheists to suppose that they actually have a case against ID.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no case to answer. ID is not a scientific theory. It doesn't remotely comply with scientific principles. It is no more scientific than numerology, astrology or leprauchauns.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
To Notready -

Thanks for accepting my invitation. I appreciate it.

As for Occam, his Razor isn't being used here to attack Christianity. I proposed it as a basic standard to judge the an athiests 'change of heart'.

It is widely, yet inaccurately wielded by quasi-scientistfic atheists to suppose that they actually have a case against ID. When in fact, the greatest scientific minds of the last century inexorably 'bump' into their own sophistical arguments. Or, like 'drzen', they just give up and generalze; digitally rolling their eyes to the hope that the others will write me off as a 'religion nut'.

Gosh, golly. You know the question must be wrong, you just can't articulate a reason. Further, you cannot defend your own false assumptions.

And to Vhawk---

This is your inaccurate quote from my earlier post.

"I'm sure you would come to agree with my assertion if you would only HONESTLY examine the evidence" like your snippet about ID. Poisoning the Well is one of the lowest tricks available."

Yet, you prefaced it by again, 'giving up' and taking a strawman argument with, "You are really aggressive, but you seem to be hearing only what you want to hear."

Nice try on the Poison Well reference. Too bad, though.

My ACTUAL line was, " You seem intelligent. Maybe you might stumble across a couple (of credible answers to the question) if you honestly and earnestly thought over the answer to the question I continue to pose. I mean that sincerely."

Check mate. Wanna play again, strawman?

Stillllll waiting.....

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, I don't get why thats a strawman. That is exactly what you did, isnt it? I mean, yeah, you did use the word 'sincerely' so I guess that makes it better, but you are claiming that if only I honestly and earnestly considered your point (or rather the answer to your point) I would have an epiphany. You understand what telling me to honestly and earnestly consider something is right? That I am not currently honest or earnest. Thus, poisoning the well, only a dishonest or lazy person would disagree with you.

[vhawk01]

Also, really loving the sharp, celebratory chess metaphor, its superb. "Blah blah blah blah CHECK MATE!" So much more convincing.

[Evo-Creationist]

To Midge-

Thanks for stopping by. ID is as much a theory as evolution. Especially when evolution cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion, the Big Bang, or the latest in physics or cosmology. You know guys, that whole troublesome problem of Dark Matter, the Cosmic Constant and the oh so worrisome 'Horizon Problem' that injects constant temperature problem that flattens the best in class of Big Bang quasi-theorists. See, ID explains all of them. Please review the 'Law vs. Theory' section.

Step aside, this thread is for those who actually read and think instead of spout platitudes.

Normally, I wouldn't respond to such a flippant remark. However, I'm still waiting for someone, anyone to fashion a cogent response to the origin of the thread.

Check mate. Go away. Next?

[Skidoo]

Here's another one:

What observation would rule out intelligent design?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's another one:

What observation would rule out intelligent design?

[/ QUOTE ]

None. You've convinced me. The SMP intelligently designed it all... prove me wrong.

luckyme

[jogsxyz]

Has anyone proven that UFOs exist or don't exist?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's another one:

What observation would rule out intelligent design?

[/ QUOTE ]

None. You've convinced me. The SMP intelligently designed it all... prove me wrong.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I honestly dont view participation on this board as any sort of competition, but to use the metaphor...

We've really been facing a lot of the JV squad lately, no?

EDIT: CHECK MATE!

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
To Midge-

Thanks for stopping by. ID is as much a theory as evolution. Especially when evolution cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion, the Big Bang, or the latest in physics or cosmology. You know guys, that whole troublesome problem of Dark Matter, the Cosmic Constant and the oh so worrisome 'Horizon Problem' that injects constant temperature problem that flattens the best in class of Big Bang quasi-theorists. See, ID explains all of them. Please review the 'Law vs. Theory' section.

Step aside, this thread is for those who actually read and think instead of spout platitudes.

Normally, I wouldn't respond to such a flippant remark. However, I'm still waiting for someone, anyone to fashion a cogent response to the origin of the thread.

Check mate. Go away. Next?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously your are quite ignorant about science. The fundamental difference is that Evolution is falsifiable, whereas ID is just a lunatic proposition that is not falsifiable. It is a long way from science. I know it is the agenda of IDers to try to "discuss" ID vs Evolution in the remote hope that some lesser mind feel that the shine of science would somehow transfer to ID, lifting its standing from the bottom of a barrel when it comes to science.

Since you seem to "think" (believe - is more applicable here) that ID is science, the onus is certainly on you to give us some falsifiable proposition about ID. Until then there is absolutely no point in giving ID the same standing as science.

I hope you play better chess, although I have my doubts on that too.

[ojc02]

Man, someone needs to make a webpage of stock points that the bible bashers have no possible answer to - just to avoid the effort of typing it out a billion times.

[Evo-Creationist]

To Vhawk--

The 'strawman' reference is in response to your Poison Well reference. Aside from that, when you stated:

I'm sorry, I don't get why thats a strawman. That is exactly what you did, isnt it? I mean, yeah, you did use the word 'sincerely' so I guess that makes it better, but you are claiming that if only I honestly and earnestly considered your point (or rather the answer to your point) I would have an epiphany. You understand what telling me to honestly and earnestly consider something is right? That I am not currently honest or earnest. Thus, poisoning the well, only a dishonest or lazy person would disagree with you.

You make a good observation. My assumption was presupposing that you would consider the origianl thread question instead of resorting to semantics.
I gave you credit and I was wrong. On that point, I concede.

As for mocking my chess reference, touche'. You got me there.

Skidoo- thanks for joining in.

Luckyme- Nice try on the hijack. Wrong point, wrong thread. Start your own.
Start with a clear definiton of SMP.

Anyone with a proposal to the origianl question that meets the bare minimum of a well thought response?

If you don't believe in something, it must be possible that hard, credible evidence could change your decision. What would that be? Here is my handicap: epiphanies and devine communication/visitation do not count.

[madnak]

Looks like fun, but I am so too tired for this tonight.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
To Vhawk--

The 'strawman' reference is in response to your Poison Well reference. Aside from that, when you stated:

I'm sorry, I don't get why thats a strawman. That is exactly what you did, isnt it? I mean, yeah, you did use the word 'sincerely' so I guess that makes it better, but you are claiming that if only I honestly and earnestly considered your point (or rather the answer to your point) I would have an epiphany. You understand what telling me to honestly and earnestly consider something is right? That I am not currently honest or earnest. Thus, poisoning the well, only a dishonest or lazy person would disagree with you.

You make a good observation. My assumption was presupposing that you would consider the origianl thread question instead of resorting to semantics.
I gave you credit and I was wrong. On that point, I concede.

As for mocking my chess reference, touche'. You got me there.

Skidoo- thanks for joining in.

Luckyme- Nice try on the hijack. Wrong point, wrong thread. Start your own.
Start with a clear definiton of SMP.

Anyone with a proposal to the origianl question that meets the bare minimum of a well thought response?

If you don't believe in something, it must be possible that hard, credible evidence could change your decision. What would that be? Here is my handicap: epiphanies and devine communication/visitation do not count.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah thats about what I anticipated, more condescension and dismissal. Ah well, onto the list of posters I only respond to in a sarcastic, lampoonish way. Its you, Skidoo and HeavilyArmed currently, so you are in good company.

[Evo-Creationist]

Midge---

The fact that no one is waiving off your endorsement of the scientific is tragic, yet predictable. You have not submitted one credible position to my question. You have only taken 'shots in the dark' like every athesitic mind who rely on arguing from the negative. That very fact makes your input to this discussion a default point to my argument. You don't have ANY idea what you believe in. You just blindly assert what you do not believe without a care to the original question. You are a common flamer.

As for your backhanded, passive agressive commentary on my chess skills, wouldn;t you be better served offer the standard idiot retort of the infamous 'heads up challenge' on Full Tilt?

To OJc02 -- I am very far from a Bible basher. In fact, I have very discriminate thoughts from years of study concerning the Bible.

Since I have never mentioned the Bible even once in this thread, I can only place you among the ignorant and prejudiced. (look it up before you respond if you care to refute the point)

Neeexxxxxt? Doesn't anybody in this famed aggregate of the intellectually arrogant have a logical, or at least, conversant response to the original question?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for stopping by. ID is as much a theory as evolution. Especially when evolution cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion, the Big Bang, or the latest in physics or cosmology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution doesn't explain why it always seems to rain after I've just washed my car, either.

The fact that you believe that evolution has *anything* to do with the Big Bang just shows your extreme ignorance. You really have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

[ QUOTE ]
You know guys, that whole troublesome problem of Dark Matter, the Cosmic Constant and the oh so worrisome 'Horizon Problem' that injects constant temperature problem that flattens the best in class of Big Bang quasi-theorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me "More things that have nothing to do with evolution" for $200, Alex.

[ QUOTE ]

See, ID explains all of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, "God did it" is quite the theory.

[Evo-Creationist]

Vhawk--

As much as it pains me to not be worthy of your dubious approval, at the end of the day, you are the responder that has NO idea WHY you believe what you believe.

I wait in anticipation of your predictable 'yo Mama!' retort. Read more. I'll be around.

[Skidoo]

My question: "What observation would rule out intelligent design?"

Your answer: "None."

You have just admitted that the anti-ID hypothesis is non-falsifiable.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone with a proposal to the origianl question that meets the bare minimum of a well thought response?


[/ QUOTE ]
You asked [ QUOTE ]
what would be the simplest proof of intelligent design to the overwhelming majority of reasonable scientists?

[/ QUOTE ]
I replied
[ QUOTE ]

evidence that evolution could not occur without the interference of an outside agency


[/ QUOTE ]

I provided a very precise answer to your question, which you called "sophistical argument". I was not making an argument at all. I was answering your straightforward question. This is quite precisely what most scientists would currently accept as evidence for ID. Ok...they would require 'strong' evidence, not just any evidence, but the point remains. We have uncountable observations in support of evolution, we have found nothing that lives that could not have evolved...

Do you not like that fact? Did you have some other evidence that you thought they should accept?

Are you asking for specifics? There are a thousand things you could present that would not be explainable by evolution. One example...a small, shrew-like animal with no genes in common with other living creatures. You show that, and I promise you evolution goes out the window.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Vhawk--

As much as it pains me to not be worthy of your dubious approval, at the end of the day, you are the responder that has NO idea WHY you believe what you believe.

I wait in anticipation of your predictable 'yo Mama!' retort. Read more. I'll be around.

[/ QUOTE ]

MY predictable retort? Comical. Thanks for diagnosing my beliefs though, no where in this thread have you asked my if I knew WHY I believe what I do so I'm glad you were able to suss it out for me.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
My question: What observation would rule out intelligent design?

Your answer: None.

You have just admitted that the anti-ID hypothesis is non-falsifiable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whaaa??? The fact that nothing can falsify ID makes the theory of ID non-falsifiable. It doesn't do anything for or against any other theory.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
My question: "What observation would rule out intelligent design?"

Your answer: "None."

You have just admitted that the anti-ID hypothesis is non-falsifiable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, it doesn't then follow that ID is something other than utter nonsense. I find it troubling that the FSM message doesn't seem to have been understood.

Edit: You people aren't actually serious about this ID stuff right? Please just tell me that you really just want to teach religion in schools. At this point, I'm about willing to let you morons have catechism in homeroom if you'll just accept a few simple scientific facts instead of trying to set the country back 200 years...

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
My question: "What observation would rule out intelligent design?"

Your answer: "None."

You have just admitted that the anti-ID hypothesis is non-falsifiable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, in much the same way that the pro-FSM hypothesis is non-falsifiable.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My question: What observation would rule out intelligent design?

Your answer: None.

You have just admitted that the anti-ID hypothesis is non-falsifiable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whaaa??? The fact that nothing can falsify ID makes the theory of ID non-falsifiable. It doesn't do anything for or against any other theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shhhh...Please let Sharkey think he has won. Maybe he'll disappear for another six months again if he believes that he has accomplished his mission.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that nothing can falsify ID makes the theory of ID non-falsifiable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. Thanks for pointing that out. It merits further consideration. Without necessarily withdrawing the previous version, though I may later, here's the new and improved one:

Since the anti-ID position can't be confirmed by observation, it really isn't a scientific hypothesis at all.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that nothing can falsify ID makes the theory of ID non-falsifiable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. Thanks for pointing that out. It merits further consideration. Without necessarily withdrawing the current version, though I may later, here's the new and improved one:

Since the anti-ID position can't be confirmed by observation, it really isn't a scientific hypothesis at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed entirely.

[Evo-Creationist]

Hopey,

Thanks for jumping in. Evolution owes everything to the Big Bang theory. Your flippant and sophomoric addtion to this thread supposes that you can cite even ONE scientist that supports an empirical Big Bang that then goes one to contradict Darwinist theory.

Come ON people, you are making this way too easy to discredit any poster who randomly 'jumps in'.

Can ANYONE present a cogent, minimum response to my actual question?

If you are lurking, but haven't joined in, you silence is consent to the poor showing. Again, I am not proposing ID vs. 'any and all negative theories' is my argument. In fact, quite the contrary. I am asking anyone who asserts that ID is not scientific, give me a basic, minimum standard by which they could be proven that ID is the most obvious conclusion by Occam;s Razor.

Any takers?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Hopey,

Thanks for jumping in. Evolution owes everything to the Big Bang theory. Your flippant and sophomoric addtion to this thread supposes that you can cite even ONE scientist that supports an empirical Big Bang that then goes one to contradict Darwinist theory.

Come ON people, you are making this way too easy to discredit any poster who randomly 'jumps in'.

Can ANYONE present a cogent, minimum response to my actual question?

If you are lurking, but haven't joined in, you silence is consent to the poor showing. Again, I am not proposing ID vs. 'any and all negative theories' is my argument. In fact, quite the contrary. I am asking anyone who asserts that ID is not scientific, give me a basic, minimum standard by which they could be proven that ID is the most obvious conclusion by Occam;s Razor.

Any takers?

[/ QUOTE ]

You may have some semblance of a point when you say that evolution owes something to the big bang theory (although I'm skeptical) but your support for it is ridiculous. Since we cant find any Big Bang-supporters who don't support evolution, that means that the Big Bang theory is essential for evolution? If we cant find any evolution supports who don't wear socks, where does that leave us?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Hopey,

Thanks for jumping in. Evolution owes everything to the Big Bang theory. Your flippant and sophomoric addtion to this thread supposes that you can cite even ONE scientist that supports an empirical Big Bang that then goes one to contradict Darwinist theory.

Come ON people, you are making this way too easy to discredit any poster who randomly 'jumps in'.

Can ANYONE present a cogent, minimum response to my actual question?

If you are lurking, but haven't joined in, you silence is consent to the poor showing. Again, I am not proposing ID vs. 'any and all negative theories' is my argument. In fact, quite the contrary. I am asking anyone who asserts that ID is not scientific, give me a basic, minimum standard by which they could be proven that ID is the most obvious conclusion by Occam;s Razor.

Any takers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. If God came down and turned my shirt blue I'd believe in God. Thats the minimum. Is there some point to this? Its not like I can be wrong.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Can ANYONE present a cogent, minimum response to my actual question?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are ignoring the answers. I repeat: give me one falsifiable proposition of ID, that should prevent someone from dismissing it outright. If you can't, it just shows what ID is, in scientific terms, nothing.

[JayTee]

Hi, I haven't read through the whole thread. If you could provide some evidence that shows that an intelligent being can come into existance through a process other than gradual, incremental evolution, then we can discuss ID. Without this evidence ID goes into the same drawer as astrology.
Showing that we were designed would not help explain the orgin of our designer. If you could show that life on Earth was the result of an architect there is still another step to go.

As far as what the simplest proof for ID would be, I have no idea. However, I would imagine that it would have to be based on an entirely new argument since science tends to destroy the old ones somewhat quickly.

Also, the ID theory of "God Did It" would probably be an example of an anti-razor.

BTW, I'm no expert, just throwing my 2 cents at an internet forum.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Can ANYONE present a cogent, minimum response to my actual question?

[/ QUOTE ]
I did

Fanboy

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
give me one falsifiable proposition of ID

[/ QUOTE ]

Anti-ID is non-falsifiable.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can ANYONE present a cogent, minimum response to my actual question?

[/ QUOTE ]
I did

Fanboy

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, me too...if you say this again, I'll assume you're trolling.

Or is this some sort of marketing test for the new Pro-ID campaign..."Show me one good reason....I CAN'T HEAR YOU, I CAN'T HEAR YOU, NANANANANANANA"

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
Hopey,

Thanks for jumping in. Evolution owes everything to the Big Bang theory. Your flippant and sophomoric addtion to this thread supposes that you can cite even ONE scientist that supports an empirical Big Bang that then goes one to contradict Darwinist theory.

Come ON people, you are making this way too easy to discredit any poster who randomly 'jumps in'.

Can ANYONE present a cogent, minimum response to my actual question?

If you are lurking, but haven't joined in, you silence is consent to the poor showing. Again, I am not proposing ID vs. 'any and all negative theories' is my argument. In fact, quite the contrary. I am asking anyone who asserts that ID is not scientific, give me a basic, minimum standard by which they could be proven that ID is the most obvious conclusion by Occam;s Razor.

Any takers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha...oops. Here I've been trying to be reasonable with you. I'll leave you with two points.

1) Evolution and the 'Big Bang' theories are totally, completely separate. They are no more connected than tickle-me elmo and egyptian nationalism. In fact, they are much less connected.

2) If I were you, I would start looking at this problem differently. You know that really hard class you took once where you just couldn't grasp the concepts? You know how you can't get an infant to solve even the most basic of differential equations?

Think of this question like that...You aren't capable of understanding. Divert your energy elsewhere.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
To Notready -

Thanks for accepting my invitation. I appreciate it.

As for Occam, his Razor isn't being used here to attack Christianity. I proposed it as a basic standard to judge the an athiests 'change of heart'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your use of it didn't actually make any sense. It's not a standard to judge "changes of heart" by.

[ QUOTE ]
It is widely, yet inaccurately wielded by quasi-scientistfic atheists to suppose that they actually have a case against ID.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOFL!

You know, I've come across plenty of creationists, and they come in all guises, some quite useful in a debate. But you're quite, erm, special.

The case against ID is simple: there is absolutely no evidence for it and it makes absolutely no predictions.

Occam would boot it straight into touch.

[ QUOTE ]
When in fact, the greatest scientific minds of the last century inexorably 'bump' into their own sophistical arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, ID boils down to "whoah, that looks a bit complicated, must have been designed". Science should just roll its eyes at that nonsense, but actually it has instead shown, in detail, how random processes create elaborate designs, in both the organic and inorganic worlds. Creationists like simply to pretend that the evidence doesn't exist and rely on repeating their bs over and over in the hope that the credulous will accept it because they hear it so often.

[ QUOTE ]
Or, like 'drzen', they just give up and generalze; digitally rolling their eyes to the hope that the others will write me off as a 'religion nut'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. I discussed with you why your OP was off the mark and you whined.

[ QUOTE ]
Gosh, golly. You know the question must be wrong, you just can't articulate a reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

I articulated a reason. You misdescribed Occam's Razor. It would have absolutely nothing to do with this question anyway. You are trying to create a position in which you can say, aha, ID is simpler than evolutionary theory, so it must be correct. Yes, ID is simple. It boils down to "Goddidit". But Occam did not suggest we simply accept the simplest available answer and that is not how science works.

[ QUOTE ]
Further, you cannot defend your own false assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You find anything I said that you consider false and I will defend it for you.

[ QUOTE ]
And to Vhawk---

This is your inaccurate quote from my earlier post.

"I'm sure you would come to agree with my assertion if you would only HONESTLY examine the evidence" like your snippet about ID. Poisoning the Well is one of the lowest tricks available."

Yet, you prefaced it by again, 'giving up' and taking a strawman argument with, "You are really aggressive, but you seem to be hearing only what you want to hear."

Nice try on the Poison Well reference. Too bad, though.

My ACTUAL line was, " You seem intelligent. Maybe you might stumble across a couple (of credible answers to the question) if you honestly and earnestly thought over the answer to the question I continue to pose. I mean that sincerely."

Check mate. Wanna play again, strawman?

Stillllll waiting.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you could bring the evidence and give us a thoroughly good laugh.

I'm still saying rabbits in the pre-Cambrian (got the quote right this time!).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can ANYONE present a cogent, minimum response to my actual question?

[/ QUOTE ]
I did

Fanboy

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, me too...if you say this again, I'll assume you're trolling.

Or is this some sort of marketing test for the new Pro-ID campaign..."Show me one good reason....I CAN'T HEAR YOU, I CAN'T HEAR YOU, NANANANANANANA"

[/ QUOTE ]
Anti-NANANANANANANA is non-falsifiable.

Fanboy

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can ANYONE present a cogent, minimum response to my actual question?

[/ QUOTE ]
I did

Fanboy

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, me too...

[/ QUOTE ]

and me.

Rabbits. In the preCambrian. Ship it.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
To Midge-

Thanks for stopping by. ID is as much a theory as evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Oh dear. That's a bit like saying Rapunzel is as much a theory as general relativity.

[ QUOTE ]
Especially when evolution cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion

[/ QUOTE ]

You what?

[ QUOTE ]
the Big Bang, or the latest in physics or cosmology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing to do with evolution.

[ QUOTE ]
You know guys, that whole troublesome problem of Dark Matter, the Cosmic Constant and the oh so worrisome 'Horizon Problem' that injects constant temperature problem that flattens the best in class of Big Bang quasi-theorists. See, ID explains all of them. Please review the 'Law vs. Theory' section.

[/ QUOTE ]

Woah, now I get it! One of those creationists who think "evolution" is a codeword for "natural science".

[ QUOTE ]
Step aside, this thread is for those who actually read and think instead of spout platitudes.

Normally, I wouldn't respond to such a flippant remark. However, I'm still waiting for someone, anyone to fashion a cogent response to the origin of the thread.

Check mate. Go away. Next?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. One of the worst creationist trolls I've ever encountered!

[John21]

I think you guys are getting pwned:

God has been using molecular scientists, many of whom are atheists, to gradually uncover a level of complexity in cellular systems that is so stunning it shouts out in testimony to a supernatural creation. link to article/blog (http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1712&cxDatabase_databaseID=1&id=7532)

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you guys are getting pwned:

God has been using molecular scientists, many of whom are atheists, to gradually uncover a level of complexity in cellular systems that is so stunning it shouts out in testimony to a supernatural creation. link to article/blog (http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1712&cxDatabase_databaseID=1&id=7532)

[/ QUOTE ]

ORLY LOL

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you guys are getting pwned:

God has been using molecular scientists, many of whom are atheists, to gradually uncover a level of complexity in cellular systems that is so stunning it shouts out in testimony to a supernatural creation. link to article/blog (http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1712&cxDatabase_databaseID=1&id=7532)

[/ QUOTE ]

ORLY LOL

[/ QUOTE ]
Atheist scientist are doing the lords work so will be fully supported, funded and venerated by religous groups. Research into life such as stem cell research is particularly pious.

Ultimately they will be rewarded in heaven.

chez

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you guys are getting pwned:

God has been using molecular scientists, many of whom are atheists, to gradually uncover a level of complexity in cellular systems that is so stunning it shouts out in testimony to a supernatural creation. link to article/blog (http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1712&cxDatabase_databaseID=1&id=7532)

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh. I think I'm going to be sick. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Evo-Creationist]

To john21 -

Thanks for jumping in. Actually, I'm pretty sure being pwned requires awareness of the battlefield. Otherwise it would just be a senseless, random drive by pwning.

This thread is precisley what happens whenever a group of the ignorant try to make a collective point. You get more than the sum of its parts - you get a SUPER-DUPER ignorant point. You get a lot of 'Yeah!' and 'me too' and strawman arguments. You see, fellow scholars, that is where you set up an argument I did not make, defeat it and claim you made a point.

Let's review for the lazier posters -

I asked :[ QUOTE ]
Using Occam's Razor (or Ockham), what would be the simplest proof of intelligent design to the overwhelming majority of reasonable scientists?

[/ QUOTE ]

or another angle:

[ QUOTE ]
Using Occam's Razor: what would be the simplest proof to you personally that God exists and is the architect of the universe and everything in it. You would then need to publish your evidence thereby eliminating an epiphany or devine communication.

[/ QUOTE ]

Contrary to

[ QUOTE ]
V Hawk says: Fine. If God came down and turned my shirt blue I'd believe in God. Thats the minimum. Is there some point to this? Its not like I can be wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

To Vhawk- I'm going to give you the benefit of being drunk when you wrote this. Your response to my question is far more intellectually childish than if I had ever (which I never have and never will) proposed "Goddidit - end of story" Your answer to my question is divine visitation to turn your shirt blue? Oh, and just to wrap it up, I'm sure you believe that you could repeat that activity for the scientific community like my question requires.

Midge says: "You are ignoring the answers. I repeat: give me one falsifiable proposition of ID, that should prevent someone from dismissing it outright. If you can't, it just shows what ID is, in scientific terms, nothing."

[/ QUOTE ]

Midge- Go back and get your GED. Poker may not last and you'll need to make that trailer payment. I never claimed that I could prove ID. the question is COULD IT BE PROVEN AND IF SO WHAT WOULD IT TAKE.

As for the one falsifiable proposition of ID: There are no infinite dimensions with infinite possibilities.

This proposition could be falsified. 'Dimension' explanations are the escape for the obstinate physicist.


Arahant, you are decent debater. I'll redirect in a moment.

[ QUOTE ]
Haha...oops. Here I've been trying to be reasonable with you. I'll leave you with two points.

1) Evolution and the 'Big Bang' theories are totally, completely separate. They are no more connected than tickle-me elmo and egyptian nationalism. In fact, they are much less connected.

[/ QUOTE ]
-----------
This is the type of logic is myopic IMHO (ok not so humble)

To say evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang is actually REQUIRING divine intervention. Try looking at a Dogwood tree (or any other flowering tree) and telling me that the flower has nothing to do with the tree. Because that is EXACTLY what you are saying when you say that Bang and Evo are not connected. You dont even know how complicated you just made your own argument and that is my reference to the sophistical.


You see, everything thing that has a beginning MUST have a cause. The universe had a beginning. (Go ahead - say it didn't) And for the lurking logic buffs: God had no beginning, therefore the 'theory' of God requires no cause. Forget what the Bible said about creation or beginnings, science requires the universe to 'begin' - the Bible just says it - physics and cosmology REQUIRE it.

Finally, because your tickle me elmo vs. Egyptian nationalism was so well painted, yet so wrong - find one instance where one could exist without the other (Bang and Evo) and you will ALLOW for ID. Not prove, but allow.

---------------
[ QUOTE ]

2) If I were you, I would start looking at this problem differently. You know that really hard class you took once where you just couldn't grasp the concepts? You know how you can't get an infant to solve even the most basic of differential equations?

Think of this question like that...You aren't capable of understanding. Divert your energy elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]
-------
Again, dismissal note debate. You sign off assumes that I jumped into to YOUR thread, didn't answer your question. I am quite capable of understanding both my question and your feeble attempts at wriggling through your own shackles of secular arrogance to even begin to address the question seriously.


Could ID be proven using the gudielines of Occam's Razor?

drzen--- If I have misdescribed Occam's Razor, then please, describe Occam's Razor as it could be used, with evidence, to prove ID. What new evidence would suffice?

And Arahant === I am not trolling. I am not allowing a 'strawman' response to satisfy the question. I am not 'test marketing' ID - and 'show me one good reason' came from our side of the debate, not mine.

Think of it like a scavenger hunt guys - all you have to do to win is find the simplest, repeatable, verfiable way to prove ID.

Oh and by the way, if rabbits in the Cambrian period is all it would take to prove Intelligent Design to you, I highly suggest you spend some time reading about what you 'think' you believe.

Again to drzen:
[ QUOTE ]


To Midge-

Thanks for stopping by. ID is as much a theory as evolution.



LOL. Oh dear. That's a bit like saying Rapunzel is as much a theory as general relativity.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not debating here, you are dismissing. You seem to position yourself above that until that type of statement betrays you. You seem to think that ID and Evolution cannot coexist. They can.

[ QUOTE ]


Especially when evolution cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion



You what?

[/ QUOTE ]

------- By that series, you can only believe that the Cambrain Explosion doesn't cause huge problems to classic Darwinism. It does. That's fact.

I'll give you just one example of what I'm getting at:

If a group of scientists published works that confirmed one form of string theory that did not require mutiple universes. It debunked other string theories and also allowed for the Big Bang. While that would not be the simplest form -speaking to my Razor requirement- it would be the type of cogent response I was hoping to seriously debate.

This is not a trick or a con - What? Are you afraid the debate might cause you to think differently? Anybody? Bueller?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not a trick or a con - What? Are you afraid the debate might cause you to think differently?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its is a con. Its the usual mismash of confusion and obsfurcation tactics used in a pretence of trying to discover the nature of the world when in fact you're not in the least bit interested.

The debate can't cause anyone to think differently because its a bogus debate. Suggesting fear is just another dishonest tactic.

chez

[Evo-Creationist]

I never suggested fear. The suggestion that I was conning the forum is the seed of that doubt chezlaw. Suspicion is a branch on the fear tree.

You are able to dismiss the argument because you falsley believe that the answer would admit proof of the devine. It would not.

It would only affirm that reason - science - and Intelligent Design could coexist. I have played not one dishonest card here. Your 'strawman' suggestion that I did is actually your own dishonesty.

If you believe that it is impossible to ever meet Occam's Razor with strong evidence of Intelligent Design, I challenge you to state why without 'poisoning the well' with 'because there is no Intelligent Design'.

But what if there were? What would it look like? There has not been even ONE direct address of original question.

'What if there were evidence' is a completely reasonable scientific method of hypothesis. Yet, you dismiss it out of hand because......?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You are able to dismiss the argument because you falsley believe that the answer would admit proof of the devine. It would not.

[/ QUOTE ]
No I don't. I'd be quite happy listening and dealing with an argument that concluded with proof of the divine. In fact if you had one then the thread would be very interesting.

[ QUOTE ]
'What if there were evidence' is a completely reasonable scientific method of hypothesis. Yet, you dismiss it out of hand because......?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not a scientific question and its silly. All evidence should be taken into account so if there was evidence it should be taken into account. So what?

[ QUOTE ]
But what if there were? What would it look like? There has not been even ONE direct address of original question.


[/ QUOTE ]
It would look the same. So what?

[ QUOTE ]
It would only affirm that reason - science - and Intelligent Design could coexist. I have played not one dishonest card here. Your 'strawman' suggestion that I did is actually your own dishonesty.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who denies that science and ID could co-exist? Your whole debate is pack of dishonest cards or ignorance. Maybe I was unfair in leaping to one of those conclusions.

chez

[Evo-Creationist]

Chez - why do you insist in parsing the question?

'Who denies that science and ID could co-exist?' Everyone who does not answer this question.

If they could co-exist, what would be the minimum required evidence that would change everything?

This is a very valid request for hypothesis. It is far from silly and highly scientific. But don't believe me:


“Today, the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis. Those who wish to oppose it have no testable theory to marshal, only speculations about unseen universes spun from fertile imaginations…Ironically, the picture of the universe given to us by the most advanced science is closer in spirit to the vision presented in the Book of Genesis than anything offered by science since Copernicus.”

No matter what any scientist has ventured about Patrick Glynn and his book 'God: The Evidence", not one has ever countered his solid reasoning for the mere presentation of the God Hypothesis.

Then the question remains: What minimum evidence would be needed to support the hypothesis through these considerations:

Testibility (and by that could it be falsified)
Simplicity (as I used Occam's Razor, discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities)
Scope - the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena
Fruitfulness - the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future
Conservatism - the degree of "fit" with existing recognised knowledge-systems

I wait.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Using Occam's Razor (or Ockham), what would be the simplest proof of intelligent design to the overwhelming majority of reasonable scientists?


[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a quote from Maurile a while back that might help you:

"By the way (in response to one of your other posts), "predicting" that we will find evidence of design in the universe is not a falsifiable prediction. I might predict that we will find a pink unicorn, but that's not falsifiable, either, unless I specify where and when we'll find it. Otherwise, for every year that goes by in which we haven't found it, I'll just say that we're not done looking yet.

For ID to make a falsifiable prediction along the lines you've suggested, it has to come up with a way to observationally distinguish between designed things and non-designed things, which nobody has done. Then it will have to make a prediction about the characteristics of something that we haven't observed yet. (For example, it might predict that no new species of fish we find that live in total darkness in deep caves will have vestigial, non-functional eyes [since giving non-functional eyes to fish that live in total darkness would be stupd]. That would be a genuine prediction. It could actually serve as the basis for a research program. It would be falsifiable. It would be awesome. It would also most likely turn out to be wrong, but that's a step up from where ID currently is. Right now, it goes in Wolfgang Pauli's "not even wrong" category.) "



link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=41 10191&Searchpage=1&Main=3997192&Words=fish+maurile &topic=&Search=true#Post4110191)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Chez - why do you insist in parsing the question?

'Who denies that science and ID could co-exist?' Everyone who does not answer this question.

If they could co-exist, what would be the minimum required evidence that would change everything?

[/ QUOTE ]
Change what? they could co-exist. there can be no evidence that they cannot co-exist or evidence that they don't.

What do you want?

chez

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way (in response to one of your other posts), "predicting" that we will find evidence contradicting design in the universe is not a falsifiable prediction. I might predict that we will find a pink unicorn, but that's not falsifiable, either, unless I specify where and when we'll find it. Otherwise, for every year that goes by in which we haven't found it, I'll just say that we're not done looking yet.

For anti-ID to make a falsifiable prediction along the lines you've suggested, it has to come up with a way to observationally distinguish between designed things and non-designed things, which nobody has done. Then it will have to make a prediction about the characteristics of something that we haven't observed yet. [...] That would be a genuine prediction. It could actually serve as the basis for a research program. It would be falsifiable. It would be awesome. It would also most likely turn out to be wrong, but that's a step up from where anti-ID currently is. Right now, it goes in Wolfgang Pauli's "not even wrong" category.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed Maurile's post.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you want?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's either a troll or he doesn't understand the answers he's being given.

People have told him repeatedly that ID is not falsifiable. ID presupposes a supernatural being that we cannot prove exists. End of story.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is not a trick or a con - What? Are you afraid the debate might cause you to think differently?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its is a con. Its the usual mismash of confusion and obsfurcation tactics used in a pretence of trying to discover the nature of the world when in fact you're not in the least bit interested.

The debate can't cause anyone to think differently because its a bogus debate. Suggesting fear is just another dishonest tactic.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure this is an entirely different thing...Usually, creationists post MUCH more rational arguments. This guy is not only not making any argument, he is actively refusing to be drawn into a debate of any kind. Suddenly txag looks like the rational 'wing of the party'...I guess I would expect that, since he seems to have thought about this more, and has more than this guy's 2nd grade level of science education. Mr. Evo is either trolling or unhinged.

I mean, can't we hear that molecular machinery is too complex to have evolved? Or maybe he could take up the pre-cambrian rabbit. Honestly...creationists are stupid, but not THIS stupid. Definitely troll or mental illness, because I don't think that anyone who can form sentences and paragraphs can be this muddled.

But just so this debate picks up some legs, let me take Mr. Evo's side...

DR. ZEN -
I (Evo) accept your minimum evidence of pre-cambrian rabbit fossils as being sufficient to prove ID. However, why would this be compelling? Because we can come up with no suitable connection between a rabbit in the pre-cambrian and any of predecessors? Well, we already have fossil evidence of organisms for which we can find no evident prior ancestors. Dickinsonia for example...Isn't this analagous evidence?

See dude...that's what you SHOULD have said...

[Evo-Creationist]

yukoncpa--

thanks for joining the thread. I am not sure how you thought it would help me or the thread because it is moot.

My thread is not " "predicting" that we will find evidence of design in the universe". Therefore, "is not a falsifiable prediction.' is irrelevant.

It is supposing that if evidence were found, what would the minimum evidence be that would meet the 5 criteria I posted above AND would serve to rank ID as the most reasonable explanation accepted by science?


The closest so far was

[ QUOTE ]
The 'laws' of the universe that we have discovered (that is, the predictive rules that appear to apply to energy and matter) are clearly fully sufficient to explain the standard evolutionary model. Since you are so keen on 'Occam's razor', the answer to your question is: "I would need to see evidence that evolution could not occur without the interference of an outside agency".

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a false presumption due to the fact that the conditions by which the animate rises from the non-animate have NEVER even posited within a reasonable hypothesis. ( I wait for evidence to contradict that, please )

It is then mutually non-falsifiable because it would inherently require outside agency to test it.

Failing that, evolution requires the false presumption of original animation. The popular thoughts reduce to this : Life exisits, so it MUST be possible without outside agency - even though we cannot duplicate, test, explain, conserve or simplify it. So then, Evolution is an explanation for the development of life stands. For the emergence of life, it falls waaaaayyy short. While this argument makes both sides moot, if I took Arahant's advice, my side would prevail because it certainly is more relevant to the question I DID ask instead of his suggestion of a better one.

Thanks for pumping life into the debate though arahant! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I continue to monitor this thread closely to steward the wandering topic back to the original question.

What would the minimum evidence be that strongly moved the majority of science to ID?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
What would the minimum evidence be that strongly moved the majority of science to ID?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll try one more time:

You would need proof of a supernatural being. ID presupposes that such a being exists. Until you can prove that this supernatural being exists, nobody will take ID seriously.

[Phil153]

Things that would cast serious doubt on the current theory of evolution:

- A tree of life that didn't indicate common descent
- The lack of a mechanism for children to be different to their parents
- Extreme or overly rapid changes in the functioning of an organism that can't be explained in naturalistic terms
- A number of independent dating methods that prove the earth is young

Things that would prove intelligent design:

- God appearing to 100 million people at once and saying "I did it!"
- Scientific evidence that conclusively supports the main points of Genesis
- The existence of structures in biology that CANNOT come about through naturalistic means

There may be more I haven't thought of.

[arahant]

This is weird man. I'm done with this thread until you clarify your problem here. It REALLY looks like trolling, but you are putting so much effort into it, I feel you deserve responses!

You've been given, like, 15 different answers, and you don't like them...It's like you asked us what kind of ice cream people like, we say chocalate, and you say 'haha try again'.

You don't even bother to disagree with the answers! Do you think scientists wouldn't accept the things that you've been given as evidence? Why did you ask your question in the first place? Do you have a point?

I'm really confused, but i'll still check back in to see if you come to some point...

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
I never claimed that I could prove ID. the question is COULD IT BE PROVEN AND IF SO WHAT WOULD IT TAKE.


[/ QUOTE ]

I did a search on Sklansky's posts and the word "miracle" and found this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=43 34382&Searchpage=1&Main=4334382&Words=miracle+Davi d+Sklansky&topic=&Search=true#Post4334382) post from January, which contains a nice summary of thoughts related to this subject although it does not specifically answer your question. But I imagine you will be interested.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the one falsifiable proposition of ID: There are no infinite dimensions with infinite possibilities.

This proposition could be falsified. 'Dimension' explanations are the escape for the obstinate physicist.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll give you just one example of what I'm getting at:

If a group of scientists published works that confirmed one form of string theory that did not require mutiple universes. It debunked other string theories and also allowed for the Big Bang. While that would not be the simplest form -speaking to my Razor requirement- it would be the type of cogent response I was hoping to seriously debate.


[/ QUOTE ]

None of this makes any sense to me; perhaps you would like to elaborate for the non string theorists and physicists such as myself.

[jogsxyz]

Can anyone prove that there is no Santa Claus?
I see them everywhere.

[Evo-Creationist]

Hopey--

Thanks for the extra try. Of course proof of a supernatural being would ice it.

The question is, what would the simplest form of that proof look like that would cast aside all other theories?

Would it look like?:

The best evidence we have to date requires that the universe had a beginning. Or, as Ted Koppel put it, “A bang must have a banger.”

The discovery of at least 50 constants in nature that are finely tuned on the order of a billionth of a percentage point that given any difference in them, larger or smaller, there would be no life anywhere in the universe. Or, as theoretical physicist Paul Davies put it, ‘It looks like the dice were rigged in advance for life to appear.’

The entire SETI project is founded on the principle that intelligence is required to produce cogent, non random information. Information that can be construed as language. Following that precept, DNA would qualify as language. If you refute DNA as a language then one must deny that DNA is the most complex information system known to man. It is complex, testable, predictable and conservative. If you deny that assumption, then SETi could receive information that is complex, testable, predictable and conservative yet attest it to random noise.

To Phil153 --- thanks for your comments

- God appearing to 100 million people at once and saying "I did it!"

This one doesn't meet the criteria. Unless you consider the possibility that the discover of DNA is exactly that message

- Scientific evidence that conclusively supports the main points of Genesis

This doesn't meet the criteria either. Because if this don't cut it, nothing would satisfy: You mean like over 6000 years ago, the author of Genesis describes the path of creation along the same lines confirmed by science? You think "Let there be light" is a coincidence? Now, of course because the Bible uses metaphor and parable as the predominant means of relaying the complex, I can't imagine what evidence would confirm Genesis that is not already on the record. I am open to suggestions though. So, that doesn't work either

- The existence of structures in biology that CANNOT come about through naturalistic means

This is the most valid and recurring attempt but makes a false assumption. It assumes that Intelligent Design does not employ naturalistic laws as the vehicle for development. It further assumes that ID and Evolution cannot co-exist which is again a commonly held, yet patently false assumption.

And for Arahant--

Thanks for your patience with my peristance. Your ice cream analogy doesn't stick because your favorite flavor isn't falsifiable.

I have, in fact disagreed with every answer and shown why. When you ask, "Do you think scientists wouldn't accept the things that you've been given as evidence?" I reply, evidence of what? Of Evolution? Granted. I believe in evolution as a developmental processand apparently, so do you. But Evolution is a decriptive theory of a process, NOT a cogent origination for life itself. As I stated before, there is not one piece of credible, testable, falsifiable evidence to support the spontaeous generation of life from the inanimate. The theories of "irreducible complexity" have been refuted by credible science and even the admission of error from Michael Behe, the author. However, Behe and his advocates have always held to the weak premise that life began with the first complex organisms and did not evolve to become that way. They did this to leave the notion of God created life through devine intervention at a point after the creation of the universe. I disagree and here is why:

"Why did you ask your question in the first place? Do you have a point?"

I asked my question because of the phenomenon of the reticular activating system. This is the bundle of cells at the back of the brain known as the 'control center'. It serves as the filter for what enters the concious mind from the unconcious.

Here is a succinct prelude I have quoted to show materiality to my original question.

"You ever notice how once you decide the kind of car you want to buy, it seems like every other car on the road is the one you want!?!

Why is that? Your RAS is activated.

Scientific research has established the fact that the RAS, a group of cells at the base of your brain stem (about the size of a little finger) serves as a little control center--sorting and evaluating incoming data. It's responsible for filtering out the urgent stuff from the unimportant so that you can function properly.

Imagine yourself at a party or reception or whatever. You're in a packed room and you can barely hear the person with whom you are engaged in a conversation. Then, someone on the other side of the room says your name and that one word cuts through the noise and your ears immediately perk up. Again, that's the RAS at work.

"Writing triggers the RAS, which in turn sends a signal to the cerebral cortex: 'Wake up! Pay attention! Don't miss this detail!' Once you write down a goal, your brain will be working overtime to see you get it, and will alert you to the signs and signals that, like the Blue Honda, were there all the time."

I said all that to say this: everyone one of us believes what we want to believe. It is in our genes. The perfect example is the rambling discourse this thread has taken. Look at the shots I have taken for even posing the difficult question of what 'the lowest common denominator' of the evidence might be that would actually cause ID to leap to the head of the class of accepted theory.

Most responses to my serious question fell in to these categories:

Parsing the question by attacking the precept and semantics.

jogsyxyz said : "Those who believe in god made no assumptions. They just started with the conclusion. Therefore Occam's razor does not apply." (WRONG!)

arahant starts with : "I know better than to respond to people who don't understand that 'law' and 'theory' are jargon specific to science, and that evolution is as much a 'law' as 'gravity'...but i will anyway

madnak wrote: "By the way, there's no such thing as a "law" any more. "Theory" is the strongest thing that exists in modern science.

Complete falsehoods:

madnak wrote: "Nothing can be proved. So while the answer to your question is "no," the question itself doesn't make a whole lot of sense."

drzen wrote: If we had a really powerful telescope that could see to the furthest reaches of the universe, and it spotted a cluster of stars that spelled out "I dunnit, signed God", I'd consider that decent evidence, although not entirely compelling. Short of that, nothing is going to do the trick. Sorry

drzen continues : "It's precisely the operation of Occam's Razor that allows science to proceed without any requirement of an "intelligent designer". (Wow, is that a humdinger.)

Strawman arguments:

jogsxyz wrote: "Assume evolution is proven. That doesn't say anything about god. For all we know god created existence through evolution. But it does prove that every religion of earth got it wrong about god."

Midge wrote: Since you seem to "think" (believe - is more applicable here) that ID is science, the onus is certainly on you to give us some falsifiable proposition about ID. Until then there is absolutely no point in giving ID the same standing as science. (This is strawman at its best because I never prosited that ID was superior to Evolution anywhere. He then goes on to Poison Well and arrogant derision hitting for the cycle.)

vhawk wrote: "Theories don't really turn into laws anyway, laws describe different things than theories do. But gravity is not even close to being completely understood and there are various different theories. It is ENTIRELY possible that gravity doesnt exist, it just seems like it does. This is far less likely, though, than the idea that the way we think about gravity is just wrong and some other, similar theory is correct." (This is not only strawman strategy, is it also parsing and probably faleshood....no matter though.)

Poisoning the well:

vhawk wrote: "But you lose a ton of credibility when you make statements like "I'm sure you would come to agree with my assertion if you would only HONESTLY examine the evidence" like your snippet about ID. Poisoning the Well is one of the lowest tricks available. ( I went on to show vhawk that he had misquoted me and that he was actually employing what he was accusing me of. Which of course is the dominant theme of 'the lowest tricks available' that he went on to conclude.)

arrogant derision:

MidGe wrote: There is no case to answer. ID is not a scientific theory. It doesn't remotely comply with scientific principles. It is no more scientific than numerology, astrology or leprauchauns. (this was a tough call to classify but I gave him credit for arrogant derision since I don't want a circular argument)

luckyme wrote: "None. You've convinced me. The SMP intelligently designed it all... prove me wrong." (this is classic answer by contrary obstinance, which doesn't qualify as a vhawk defined "trick" but is certainly sophomoric.)

drzen wrote: The usual stuff. Show the creationist a bit of how science works and they whine that you're not playing fair. Well, dur. Science makes its own rules and Goddidit isn't one of them.

OJC02 wrote: "Man, someone needs to make a webpage of stock points that the bible bashers have no possible answer to - just to avoid the effort of typing it out a billion times." (Beacuse this is his entire post, this one trumps MidGe's cycle)

Hopey writes: Evolution doesn't explain why it always seems to rain after I've just washed my car, either.

The fact that you believe that evolution has *anything* to do with the Big Bang just shows your extreme ignorance. You really have no idea what the hell you're talking about. (Let the strawman pass. Let the fallacious presumption pass. Just can it in arrogant derision.)

arahant wrote: Unfortunately, it doesn't then follow that ID is something other than utter nonsense. I find it troubling that the FSM message doesn't seem to have been understood.

Edit: You people aren't actually serious about this ID stuff right? Please just tell me that you really just want to teach religion in schools. At this point, I'm about willing to let you morons have catechism in homeroom if you'll just accept a few simple scientific facts instead of trying to set the country back 200 years... (that's a good one. Anyone here noticing a consistent theme of persecution that NEVER addresses the original query?)

The hits just keep on comin' but my point is made about the context of the debate that sparked over the question.

Jaytee comes the cloest to intellectual honesty with this:
"Hi, I haven't read through the whole thread. If you could provide some evidence that shows that an intelligent being can come into existance through a process other than gradual, incremental evolution, then we can discuss ID. Without this evidence ID goes into the same drawer as astrology.
Showing that we were designed would not help explain the orgin of our designer. If you could show that life on Earth was the result of an architect there is still another step to go.As far as what the simplest proof for ID would be, I have no idea. However, I would imagine that it would have to be based on an entirely new argument since science tends to destroy the old ones somewhat quickly."

So then, my point is this: With only non-material exception, every poster to this board apparently considers themselves a critical thinker. However, when I asked a logical question, intead of really trying to answer it, that 'ole pesky reticular activator' kicked in and patently refused to accept the question as having any merit AT ALL.

Maybe you are somewhat familiar with this behavior since we see it many times everyday since the Iraq War began.

Since no one even grazed a direct answer to either version of the question, I wonder what would have happened if I put it like this.

"Hi guys, long time lurker, first time poster with a question about my Jesus freak sister. I am an atheist because I grew up as a preacher's kid and can't stand how ignorant and hypocritical religious nuts are. They are all douches.
But I need your help settling a bet. My philosophy and physics teacher are betting that science could actually present new evidence that would turn popular theory on it's head. The bet is this: Using the simplest and most effective method (they call it Occam's Razor), what would be the most elegant new discovery that would completely replace popular theories of the origin of the universe with incontravertible evidence of Intelligent Design?"

They said that the bible, God, Buddha, Allah, quran, whatever -- none of that mattered just the evidence of unified design of the universe from an intelligent outside agent." The prize is $500!! I will throw some love to anybody that can help me win it!!! So whaddya think?"

Does anybody here doubt the different response that would have gotten from the forum? Do you know that your own mind is so strong that the truth could be staring you right in the face and you wouldn't even recognize it as evidence? That applies for the secular thinker AND the non-secular believer.

So, you pwned posters I quoted --- I ask you again ---- "Wanna take a ride?"

[Evo-Creationist]

West --

thanks for the post of Sklansky's! I tried to search for some background from him like that but couldn't find it. User error, of course!

Sweet-sweet-pwnge......hmmmm......pwnge

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
To Phil153 --- thanks for your comments

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
- The existence of structures in biology that CANNOT come about through naturalistic means

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the most valid and recurring attempt but makes a false assumption. It assumes that Intelligent Design does not employ naturalistic laws as the vehicle for development. It further assumes that ID and Evolution cannot co-exist which is again a commonly held, yet patently false assumption.


[/ QUOTE ]

To be a nit, I don't think it assumes what you say it assumes. IF "the existence of structures in biology that CANNOT come about through naturalistic means" were shown, then perhaps intelligent design would be the best explanation - but just because that would be the case, it doesn't follow that all possible "designs" are assumed to be incompatible with evolution. Just that those that are couldn't be 'proven' in the same way as those that aren't.

[ QUOTE ]
I asked my question because of the phenomenon of the reticular activating system.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I said all that to say this: everyone one of us believes what we want to believe. It is in our genes. The perfect example is the rambling discourse this thread has taken. Look at the shots I have taken for even posing the difficult question of what 'the lowest common denominator' of the evidence might be that would actually cause ID to leap to the head of the class of accepted theory.



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
So then, my point is this: With only non-material exception, every poster to this board apparently considers themselves a critical thinker. However, when I asked a logical question, intead of really trying to answer it, that 'ole pesky reticular activator' kicked in and patently refused to accept the question as having any merit AT ALL.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think one of the reasons you're taking shots is because you're employing the annoying tactic of asking an obviously baiting question instead of just saying what you really would like to say up front. Your proclamations of "check mate" and "pwnge" back this up. Using "FanBoys" in the title of your post began the antagonism. People sometimes recognize when a question is intended as a piece of cheese set in a trap - intellectually dishonest. It's like when a salesman says, "What if I could show you..." People take you less seriously.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you know that your own mind is so strong that the truth could be staring you right in the face and you wouldn't even recognize it as evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a specific truth you have in mind?

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]


The discovery of at least 50 constants in nature that are finely tuned on the order of a billionth of a percentage point that given any difference in them, larger or smaller, there would be no life anywhere in the universe. Or, as theoretical physicist Paul Davies put it, ‘It looks like the dice were rigged in advance for life to appear.’


[/ QUOTE ]

I quit reading here. Are you Sklansky's drunken gimmick account?

[arahant]

Well, I think you may have sort of made your point there, I guess...you wanted us to say something cosmology or something...I dunno.

Here's the thing Evo, and you can take this as ad hominem or derisive or arrogant or whatever, but I'm gonna point out the problem here.

The problem is, you really don't understand what you are talking about at all. You keep talking about cosmology and abiogenesis and mixing it all up with evolution. Your 'arguments' are nonsensical. You are here on a forum addressing a bunch of very smart folks, many likely with IQ's in the 150+ range. To suggest that you are making a valid arguement and we don't understand you is absurd. What you need to do is step back from the question, and ask yourself, irrespective of the truth or falsity of your personal beliefs, "Which is more likely? That I am 2 standard deviations smarter than this group of people and yet I can't make them understand my question? Or that they are 2 standard deviations smarter than I?"

And I tell you what...I'll give you 2 shots at the answer.

And when you're done thinking about it, ponder how you would go about debating this subject with your dog. You may assume he can speak.

I will grant you one point; some of the responses, mine included, can be construed as aggressive, arrogant, or dismissive. I should be a better person, and simply abstain. But you WANTED responses. You WANTED a discussion. And if you try and start a discussion, and then just pretend that nobody is talking to you, or that extremely intelligent people just 'don't get it'...well, you're going to receive some negative reactions. We tried several times to point out the flaws in your posts, and you wouldn't listen.

[Evo-Creationist]

West -

[ QUOTE ]


To Phil153 --- thanks for your comments

- God appearing to 100 million people at once and saying "I did it!"

This one doesn't meet the criteria.



Why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

For no reason than it is not the answer to the question I posed. Other than that, for the same reason it would not meet the criteria of ET if 100 ,illion chinese saw a UFO.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I don't think it assumes what you say it assumes. It simply is saying, IF "the existence of structures in biology that CANNOT come about through naturalistic means" were shown, then perhaps intelligent design would be the best explanation - but just because that would be the case, it doesn't follow that all possible "designs" are assumed to be incompatible with evolution. Just that those that are couldn't be 'proven' in the same way as those that aren't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still missing the critical issue in that answer. Here's why: please someone cite credible evidence that the existence of life CAN generate from the inanimate. I would like to review that.

As for the taking shots, you are justifying the behavior on non-cogent grounds. A short review of the thread will show that it deteriorated rapidly into ignorance regarding the central tenet.

As for my intellectual dishonesty, I did not pose a 'baiting' question any more than asking for a review of 9/11 or the Iraq Waris baiting the government. I posted a unique question on a Science, Math and Philosophy forum. Once everyone assumed I had an agenda to 'prove' ID by some trickery, the thread spiraled into less than optimal discussion.

The only thing I wanted to know was a satisfactory answer. The things I learned are detailed in my longest post.

[ QUOTE ]
People sometimes recognize when a question is intended as a piece of cheese set in a trap - intellectually dishonest. It's like when a salesman says, "What if I could show you..."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a great example of the reticular bias that is a learned behavior. It relies some type of experience that triggers the defensive behavior. So, instead of actually addressing the question in some semblance of earnest, the responses assume I had an agenda.

Now think about the ramifications of that with me if you will. Due to the thousands of years of blind thesitic propaganda, there is a backlash of bias.
It is this predictable backlash that worries me.

And that is the specific truth I had in mind.


p.s. jaytee - Good comeback! Keep that mind waaayy open.

[BPA234]

Using Occam's Razor (or Ockham), what would be the simplest proof of intelligent design to the overwhelming majority of reasonable scientists? Having that, these scientists would be able to publish this evidence as a proven law of science not a theory.

The above is a metaphysical inquiry that is not able to be answered with a scientific response. Farther down in your post you do ask what would be the simplest proof etc. But, then, when people attempt to respond to either, you denigrate their responses.

In fact, your whole post appears to be designed to elicit the responses you want to attack. I haven't read them all, nor do I intend to. But. I have read your follow-up post and find that you seem more interested in some kind of onananistic intellectual manipulation than any kind of rational discourse.


I would like to answer your follow-up question:

Using Occam's Razor: what would be the simplest proof to you personally that God exists and is the architect of the universe and everything in it.

The metaphysical equivalent of an ontologically equal example of a rock.


You would then need to publish your evidence thereby eliminating an epiphany or devine communication.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what the above means.

[bearly]

there won't be much riding. your horse died, was buried, and is now top soil. i know this does not endear me to people, but: find a peaceful place, take a deep breath, and study the naterial you intend to offer before making your post...........b

[John21]

Ok Evo,

How about answering your own question:
Using Occam's Razor: what would be the simplest proof to you personally that God exists and is the architect of the universe and everything in it.

What proof/evidence would you need?
And for integrity's sake, you can't use the gaps, holes, or things another theory can't explain as proof for ID.

[madnak]

Being brief, because it's a long thread and I have much to read (and some of this is probably covered later on).

Regarding your quote, it's suspect and irrelevant. It also supports the fact that theories are stronger than laws.

[ QUOTE ]
The use of Occam's razor here is precisley accurate and far from nonsensical.

Here is my reasoning. SETI intercepts a message from outerspace. the message is complex and mathematical. Let's say at least as complex as the message used in Sagan's book "Contact". Occam's Razor directly applies to such a message. However, a message such as I reference is overt and calculated, credible or not. Occam's Razor supposes you explain what you see with collective knowledge until you find contradictory EVIDENCE, not contradictory emotion or opinions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Occam's Razor applies to theories, not messages. Though the conclusion reached through the razor is valid here, it has nothing to do with "collective knowledge," but rather with parsimony.

[ QUOTE ]
So, using Occam's Razor, what would be your own minimum standard you would use to accept a new scientific paradigm that placed intelligent design squarely as the cause of evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

I still say this question is nonsensical, but okay, There is only one real answer according to the definition of the razor. And it wouldn't be a minimum standard, it would be an only standard.

The standard is that intelligent design is expressed as a theory and accounts for the observed data as completely and accurately as any other theory (I won't even demand making identical predictions, though technically I should), and is also "simpler" or more parsimonious than the alternatives.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
1. The razor is supposed to help us decide which is a simpler theory. But I see no way to apply it to the question of God vs. evolution. To say one is simpler than the other is to make enormous presuppositions. The razor is primarily intended to help decide something provisionally for procedural reasons about matters that are empirical and can be the subject of experimentation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just wanted to say that NotReady is 100% correct here, and this is why the application of the razor to this debate is nonsensical.

[madnak]

Looks like the rest of the thread is a wash. I find it hard to believe that a troll would go to so much effort. So I'm baffled.

Evo, your understanding of science seems limited. It appears that you've educated yourself to a surprising degree, probably using sources such as madsci.org or books written for the layman. While these sources are great, they're a poor way to reach a comprehensive understanding of the core concepts and methods of scientific inquiry.

You're obviously an intelligent person, and maybe because of that you think your understanding is complete, and that the people around you have very little to offer conceptually. Many of the posters here are also highly intelligent, and some are also experienced scientists - I think it would help everyone involved if you stepped back for a moment and acknowledged that, while there are probably conceptual frameworks you understand better than most of us, there are also conceptual frameworks that some of us understand better than you. Much of this discussion is getting tied down in semantics due to apparently superficial errors in communication.

[Evo-Creationist]

Madnak- Thanks for your diligent replies. I have no doubt in the intelligence of the forum posters. It is there intellectual processes that I doubt.

My point about RAS should ring crystal clear, but apparently it does not. This thread tends to suggest that we have collectively educated our way to obstinance, not enlightenment--that the secular movement is so fixated on on anti-theism, that the question could never be reasonably posed, "What exactly are we looking for?" It is well held that the quality of answers rarely exceed the quality of the question and the intent of the questioner. I find it alarming on many different levels that, in my view, no one had a decent answer to this question. That the majority of the energy was spent in highly suspect avoidance of adressing the value of what the question might uncover.

But the general consenus was certain in their belief that the answer could not be found; that the very question was suspect. Certainty in ignorance, certainty in what you only think you know, is as dangerous as the Inquistion and witch hunting. The repeated reference to 'trolling' in this thread is actually an intellectual epithet meant to poison the well of any semblence of consideration that influence by a divine agent could actually be proven in the contect of my question.

As for john21's suggestion that I answer my own question I ask this, what possible benefit could be gained from that?

[madnak]

I oppose certainty in general, so you're preaching to the choir here. But that's part of why I also oppose religion.

Regarding the troll accusations, a lot of what we get here is stuff like this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showprofile.php?Cat=0&User=78732&Number=8318593&Bo ard=scimathphil&what=showflat&page=0&fpart=1&vc=1) and this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showprofile.php?Cat=0&User=34850&Number=8313837&Bo ard=scimathphil&what=showflat&page=0&fpart=1&vc=1) . It got especially bad lately and nobody feels like giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. Heavily is the only one I'm sure is a troll, but due to his posting and Skidoo's strange way of communicating (and resemblance to an old poster called Sharkey), we're on our toes.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
As for john21's suggestion that I answer my own question I ask this, what possible benefit could be gained from that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't seen ID presented as a scientific theory, and honestly, from what I have seen, I'm not sure it would even qualify as a scientific hypothesis.

So I just don't see how it's even possible to put ID on the table for discussion - as far as science goes. I'm thinking if I could see how the whole thing came together, maybe I could. But for right now, ID just seems like an 'explanation', and I can't see how it falls under the umbrella of science and the scientific method.

[Evo-Creationist]

To Madnak-

Thanks for the elaboration, it is appreciated and makes a more sense f the context.

To John -

I'm sure you are correct in your views on the doubt that ID measures up to being a true scientific theory. However, in my view, that is begging the question.'

I could have easily asked what minimum evidence would cause a 'flying spaghetti monster' to meet the requirements of my original question. In that, I believe there would have been a better reception but a much greater leap required. ( a new thread perhaps )

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
To John -

I'm sure you are correct in your views on the doubt that ID measures up to being a true scientific theory. However, in my view, that is begging the question.'


[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree if I was asking you to use a conclusion to prove a theory, but I'm not. I'm simply asking to use your conclusion to demonstrate to me that ID is in fact 'a theory.'

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way (in response to one of your other posts), "predicting" that we will find evidence contradicting design in the universe is not a falsifiable prediction. I might predict that we will find a pink unicorn, but that's not falsifiable, either, unless I specify where and when we'll find it. Otherwise, for every year that goes by in which we haven't found it, I'll just say that we're not done looking yet.

For anti-ID to make a falsifiable prediction along the lines you've suggested, it has to come up with a way to observationally distinguish between designed things and non-designed things, which nobody has done. Then it will have to make a prediction about the characteristics of something that we haven't observed yet. [...] That would be a genuine prediction. It could actually serve as the basis for a research program. It would be falsifiable. It would be awesome. It would also most likely turn out to be wrong, but that's a step up from where anti-ID currently is. Right now, it goes in Wolfgang Pauli's "not even wrong" category.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed Maurile's post.

[/ QUOTE ]

You simply do not understand that "falsifying design" is not something "anti-ID" needs to do. "Design" needs to show *us* how we can falsify *it*. I've told you how to falsify evolution. Now get on with it.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is not a trick or a con - What? Are you afraid the debate might cause you to think differently?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its is a con. Its the usual mismash of confusion and obsfurcation tactics used in a pretence of trying to discover the nature of the world when in fact you're not in the least bit interested.

The debate can't cause anyone to think differently because its a bogus debate. Suggesting fear is just another dishonest tactic.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure this is an entirely different thing...Usually, creationists post MUCH more rational arguments. This guy is not only not making any argument, he is actively refusing to be drawn into a debate of any kind. Suddenly txag looks like the rational 'wing of the party'...I guess I would expect that, since he seems to have thought about this more, and has more than this guy's 2nd grade level of science education. Mr. Evo is either trolling or unhinged.

I mean, can't we hear that molecular machinery is too complex to have evolved? Or maybe he could take up the pre-cambrian rabbit. Honestly...creationists are stupid, but not THIS stupid. Definitely troll or mental illness, because I don't think that anyone who can form sentences and paragraphs can be this muddled.

But just so this debate picks up some legs, let me take Mr. Evo's side...

DR. ZEN -
I (Evo) accept your minimum evidence of pre-cambrian rabbit fossils as being sufficient to prove ID. However, why would this be compelling? Because we can come up with no suitable connection between a rabbit in the pre-cambrian and any of predecessors? Well, we already have fossil evidence of organisms for which we can find no evident prior ancestors. Dickinsonia for example...Isn't this analagous evidence?

See dude...that's what you SHOULD have said...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, they generally post links to some bs thing about fossils in the wrong strata and claim that that's the same thing. Then you explain why it isn't and they pretend not to understand the explanation. It's great fun. It's all enjoyable because we don't know we're right but we know they're wrong, and they don't know they're wrong but they know we're wrong too.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
Madnak- Thanks for your diligent replies. I have no doubt in the intelligence of the forum posters. It is there intellectual processes that I doubt.

My point about RAS should ring crystal clear, but apparently it does not. This thread tends to suggest that we have collectively educated our way to obstinance, not enlightenment--that the secular movement is so fixated on on anti-theism, that the question could never be reasonably posed, "What exactly are we looking for?" It is well held that the quality of answers rarely exceed the quality of the question and the intent of the questioner. I find it alarming on many different levels that, in my view, no one had a decent answer to this question. That the majority of the energy was spent in highly suspect avoidance of adressing the value of what the question might uncover.

But the general consenus was certain in their belief that the answer could not be found; that the very question was suspect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, the question was stupid. That's what you're just not getting. At very great length.

Science is a strictly prescribed pursuit. It doesn't pretend not to be. So the question "what would prove a nonscientific question in science?" is best answered "nothing would". Which you've had fifty flavours of.

Berating the audience for their "closedmindedness" is just dim. We all know that science is circumscribed. It's not closed minds that do that. It's minds that limit the enquiry so that it is one kind of thing and not another. Science attempts to describe the world *as far as possible* without reference to the unmeasurable. It claims only to be an approximation, not a set of truths.

The question "is there a God?" is not uninteresting to people interested in science but it's not likely to be framable as a scientific question. That doesn't mean that science's explanation of what is will not turn out to be wrong in the particular of excluding God. It simply means that that is not a problem for science.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way (in response to one of your other posts), "predicting" that we will find evidence contradicting design in the universe is not a falsifiable prediction. I might predict that we will find a pink unicorn, but that's not falsifiable, either, unless I specify where and when we'll find it. Otherwise, for every year that goes by in which we haven't found it, I'll just say that we're not done looking yet.

For anti-ID to make a falsifiable prediction along the lines you've suggested, it has to come up with a way to observationally distinguish between designed things and non-designed things, which nobody has done. Then it will have to make a prediction about the characteristics of something that we haven't observed yet. [...] That would be a genuine prediction. It could actually serve as the basis for a research program. It would be falsifiable. It would be awesome. It would also most likely turn out to be wrong, but that's a step up from where anti-ID currently is. Right now, it goes in Wolfgang Pauli's "not even wrong" category.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed Maurile's post.

[/ QUOTE ]

You simply do not understand that "falsifying design" is not something "anti-ID" needs to do. "Design" needs to show *us* how we can falsify *it*. I've told you how to falsify evolution. Now get on with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you understand the post you quoted? Apparently not.

It does not say anti-ID needs to falsify ID. It says anti-ID is itself non-falsifiable. From what I recall of your post, all the proposed falsifications were not experimentally doable and were therefore void.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way (in response to one of your other posts), "predicting" that we will find evidence contradicting design in the universe is not a falsifiable prediction. I might predict that we will find a pink unicorn, but that's not falsifiable, either, unless I specify where and when we'll find it. Otherwise, for every year that goes by in which we haven't found it, I'll just say that we're not done looking yet.

For anti-ID to make a falsifiable prediction along the lines you've suggested, it has to come up with a way to observationally distinguish between designed things and non-designed things, which nobody has done. Then it will have to make a prediction about the characteristics of something that we haven't observed yet. [...] That would be a genuine prediction. It could actually serve as the basis for a research program. It would be falsifiable. It would be awesome. It would also most likely turn out to be wrong, but that's a step up from where anti-ID currently is. Right now, it goes in Wolfgang Pauli's "not even wrong" category.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed Maurile's post.

[/ QUOTE ]

You simply do not understand that "falsifying design" is not something "anti-ID" needs to do. "Design" needs to show *us* how we can falsify *it*. I've told you how to falsify evolution. Now get on with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you understand the post you quoted? Apparently not.

It does not say anti-ID needs to falsify ID. It says anti-ID is itself non-falsifiable. From what I recall of your post, all the proposed falsifications were not experimentally doable and were therefore void.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but does anti-ID exist? It probably does. There are probably some small subset of people who are fanatical that ID is wrong. They might even be right, but they can't demonstrate that scientifically. Is that the concession you were looking for? If you want me to give a personal guess, I'd say ID (presented by Dembski, for simplicities sake) is probably wrong. But it could definitely be right. It just wouldn't make a difference. It doesn't make any predictions, it isnt falsifiable, so a world where ID is correct and a world where it isn't are in no way observably different. Is it even illogical to say that ID, ID2, IDOMEGA and a thousand other imaginary 'theories' could ALL be right at the same time? I guess as long as they weren't logically contradictory. Heck, even if ID says, as one of its core tenets, "Evolution is wrong," it still COULD be right. It just probably isn't.

You seem to be confusing our dismissal of the meaningless ID as some sort of anti-ID theory. Let me assure you it isn't that. I only choose to reject ID for simplicities sake, because its as unnecessary as literally an infinite number of other, equally likely, explanations.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way (in response to one of your other posts), "predicting" that we will find evidence contradicting design in the universe is not a falsifiable prediction. I might predict that we will find a pink unicorn, but that's not falsifiable, either, unless I specify where and when we'll find it. Otherwise, for every year that goes by in which we haven't found it, I'll just say that we're not done looking yet.

For anti-ID to make a falsifiable prediction along the lines you've suggested, it has to come up with a way to observationally distinguish between designed things and non-designed things, which nobody has done. Then it will have to make a prediction about the characteristics of something that we haven't observed yet. [...] That would be a genuine prediction. It could actually serve as the basis for a research program. It would be falsifiable. It would be awesome. It would also most likely turn out to be wrong, but that's a step up from where anti-ID currently is. Right now, it goes in Wolfgang Pauli's "not even wrong" category.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed Maurile's post.

[/ QUOTE ]

You simply do not understand that "falsifying design" is not something "anti-ID" needs to do. "Design" needs to show *us* how we can falsify *it*. I've told you how to falsify evolution. Now get on with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you understand the post you quoted? Apparently not.

It does not say anti-ID needs to falsify ID. It says anti-ID is itself non-falsifiable. From what I recall of your post, all the proposed falsifications were not experimentally doable and were therefore void.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but does anti-ID exist? It probably does. There are probably some small subset of people who are fanatical that ID is wrong. They might even be right, but they can't demonstrate that scientifically. Is that the concession you were looking for? If you want me to give a personal guess, I'd say ID (presented by Dembski, for simplicities sake) is probably wrong. But it could definitely be right. It just wouldn't make a difference. It doesn't make any predictions, it isnt falsifiable, so a world where ID is correct and a world where it isn't are in no way observably different. Is it even illogical to say that ID, ID2, IDOMEGA and a thousand other imaginary 'theories' could ALL be right at the same time? I guess as long as they weren't logically contradictory. Heck, even if ID says, as one of its core tenets, "Evolution is wrong," it still COULD be right. It just probably isn't.

You seem to be confusing our dismissal of the meaningless ID as some sort of anti-ID theory. Let me assure you it isn't that. I only choose to reject ID for simplicities sake, because its as unnecessary as literally an infinite number of other, equally likely, explanations .

[/ QUOTE ]
even rejection is a bit strong. All that is really being pointed out is that there's no reason to believe ID is true - there can't be because the world would look exactly the same either way.

If people want to believe things without any reason too then that's ok (may even be a good thing for some). Its only when they make up reasons to bolster there ego or politics, or don't realise that there aren't any that there is a problem.

chez

[vhawk01]

I agree. But its a matter of practicality. Its hard for me to mentality hold an infinite number of theories in my head, so I just try to understand the ones that are useful and 'reject' the rest. I don't deny they might be right. You are right though...is dismiss better?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. But its a matter of practicality. Its hard for me to mentality hold an infinite number of theories in my head, so I just try to understand the ones that are useful and 'reject' the rest. I don't deny they might be right. You are right though...is dismiss better?

[/ QUOTE ]
I like 'Ignore'. It's irrelevent so ignore it. (pretty close to dismiss - probably close enough to dismiss the difference).

chez

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way (in response to one of your other posts), "predicting" that we will find evidence contradicting design in the universe is not a falsifiable prediction. I might predict that we will find a pink unicorn, but that's not falsifiable, either, unless I specify where and when we'll find it. Otherwise, for every year that goes by in which we haven't found it, I'll just say that we're not done looking yet.

For anti-ID to make a falsifiable prediction along the lines you've suggested, it has to come up with a way to observationally distinguish between designed things and non-designed things, which nobody has done. Then it will have to make a prediction about the characteristics of something that we haven't observed yet. [...] That would be a genuine prediction. It could actually serve as the basis for a research program. It would be falsifiable. It would be awesome. It would also most likely turn out to be wrong, but that's a step up from where anti-ID currently is. Right now, it goes in Wolfgang Pauli's "not even wrong" category.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed Maurile's post.

[/ QUOTE ]

You simply do not understand that "falsifying design" is not something "anti-ID" needs to do. "Design" needs to show *us* how we can falsify *it*. I've told you how to falsify evolution. Now get on with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you understand the post you quoted? Apparently not.

It does not say anti-ID needs to falsify ID. It says anti-ID is itself non-falsifiable. From what I recall of your post, all the proposed falsifications were not experimentally doable and were therefore void.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but does anti-ID exist? It probably does. There are probably some small subset of people who are fanatical that ID is wrong. They might even be right, but they can't demonstrate that scientifically. Is that the concession you were looking for? If you want me to give a personal guess, I'd say ID (presented by Dembski, for simplicities sake) is probably wrong. But it could definitely be right. It just wouldn't make a difference. It doesn't make any predictions, it isnt falsifiable, so a world where ID is correct and a world where it isn't are in no way observably different. Is it even illogical to say that ID, ID2, IDOMEGA and a thousand other imaginary 'theories' could ALL be right at the same time? I guess as long as they weren't logically contradictory. Heck, even if ID says, as one of its core tenets, "Evolution is wrong," it still COULD be right. It just probably isn't.

You seem to be confusing our dismissal of the meaningless ID as some sort of anti-ID theory. Let me assure you it isn't that. I only choose to reject ID for simplicities sake, because its as unnecessary as literally an infinite number of other, equally likely, explanations.

[/ QUOTE ]

By "anti-ID" I mean those positions that deny ID.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way (in response to one of your other posts), "predicting" that we will find evidence contradicting design in the universe is not a falsifiable prediction. I might predict that we will find a pink unicorn, but that's not falsifiable, either, unless I specify where and when we'll find it. Otherwise, for every year that goes by in which we haven't found it, I'll just say that we're not done looking yet.

For anti-ID to make a falsifiable prediction along the lines you've suggested, it has to come up with a way to observationally distinguish between designed things and non-designed things, which nobody has done. Then it will have to make a prediction about the characteristics of something that we haven't observed yet. [...] That would be a genuine prediction. It could actually serve as the basis for a research program. It would be falsifiable. It would be awesome. It would also most likely turn out to be wrong, but that's a step up from where anti-ID currently is. Right now, it goes in Wolfgang Pauli's "not even wrong" category.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed Maurile's post.

[/ QUOTE ]

You simply do not understand that "falsifying design" is not something "anti-ID" needs to do. "Design" needs to show *us* how we can falsify *it*. I've told you how to falsify evolution. Now get on with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you understand the post you quoted? Apparently not.

It does not say anti-ID needs to falsify ID. It says anti-ID is itself non-falsifiable. From what I recall of your post, all the proposed falsifications were not experimentally doable and were therefore void.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but does anti-ID exist? It probably does. There are probably some small subset of people who are fanatical that ID is wrong. They might even be right, but they can't demonstrate that scientifically. Is that the concession you were looking for? If you want me to give a personal guess, I'd say ID (presented by Dembski, for simplicities sake) is probably wrong. But it could definitely be right. It just wouldn't make a difference. It doesn't make any predictions, it isnt falsifiable, so a world where ID is correct and a world where it isn't are in no way observably different. Is it even illogical to say that ID, ID2, IDOMEGA and a thousand other imaginary 'theories' could ALL be right at the same time? I guess as long as they weren't logically contradictory. Heck, even if ID says, as one of its core tenets, "Evolution is wrong," it still COULD be right. It just probably isn't.

You seem to be confusing our dismissal of the meaningless ID as some sort of anti-ID theory. Let me assure you it isn't that. I only choose to reject ID for simplicities sake, because its as unnecessary as literally an infinite number of other, equally likely, explanations.

[/ QUOTE ]

By "anti-ID" I mean those positions that deny ID.

[/ QUOTE ]

And would you agree that I did a good job making the point that I, as well as most people on this forum, do not deny ID, we simply dismiss it? We do not deny ID any more than we deny the infinite number of other explanations that may equally be correct.

By the way, the only reason I continue to add the caveat of the 'infinite other possibly correct explanations' is to make sure I'm not misquoted or misunderstood.

The only theory or explanation that I know of that does anything USEFUL for me is evolution. I don't know if its meaningful, necessarily, to say evolution is more likely to be correct. But its infinitely more likely to be useful.

The people you feel are denying ID are more likely inadequately expressing that they are really simply dismissing it.

[arahant]

I think you're trying to gloss over a real debate by subtlely redefining ID. From Wikipedia...
"Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.' "

At least under THIS definition, it explicitly conflicts with accepted theories of evolution. It's not a theory without consequence. To accept evolution IS to deny ID, and I don't think many ID proponents or scientists would disagree.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you're trying to gloss over a real debate by subtlely redefining ID. From Wikipedia...
"Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.' "

At least under THIS definition, it explicitly conflicts with accepted theories of evolution. It's not a theory without consequence. To accept evolution IS to deny ID, and I don't think many ID proponents or scientists would disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it conflicts with TOE, but as vhawk said it doesn't predict. And unfortunately - that's science.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you're trying to gloss over a real debate by subtlely redefining ID. From Wikipedia...
"Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.' "

At least under THIS definition, it explicitly conflicts with accepted theories of evolution. It's not a theory without consequence. To accept evolution IS to deny ID, and I don't think many ID proponents or scientists would disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it conflicts with TOE, but as vhawk said it doesn't predict. And unfortunately - that's science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yes, but vhawk also said that 'he and others' don't deny ID, they just dismiss it (because it's not science). I'm just making the point that I think this is not entirely true. If the ID people define their idea in opposition to evolution, then the fact that one accepts evolution means one denies ID.

Further, I would actually say that ID DOES make falsiable predictions, most of which have in fact been falsified. Consider the irreducible complexity of the eyeball argument. The proposition is 'it couldn't have evolved because it's so complex'. And yet it is trivial to provide a hypothetical evolutionary pathway for the eyeball (This pathway doesn't need to be the actual one, because ID claims there is NO such pathway).

Now admittedly, any falsified prediction will be replaced by another, and there is no way to falsify the theory as a whole, since the theory isn't "eyeballs couldn't have evolved", it's "surely, SOMETHING we can find couldn't have evolved". And of course, this is the concession that was made to ensure that the theory couldn't be falsified. Basically, ID'ers are creationists, and they know that any falsifiable prediction they make will be shown wrong.

I think the drivers of the ID movement know very well it isn't scientific. They know they are trying to preach creationism. They don't really want to debate scientists about this, they want to fight a PR battle and influence the ignorant to adopt this in schools.

Of course, once they've convinced the ignorant that it's science, those folks go out and try and argue the point, but I don't believe that guys at the top want to engage in any real debate about the subject.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you're trying to gloss over a real debate by subtlely redefining ID. From Wikipedia...
"Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.' "

At least under THIS definition, it explicitly conflicts with accepted theories of evolution. It's not a theory without consequence. To accept evolution IS to deny ID, and I don't think many ID proponents or scientists would disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it conflicts with TOE, but as vhawk said it doesn't predict. And unfortunately - that's science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yes, but vhawk also said that 'he and others' don't deny ID, they just dismiss it (because it's not science). I'm just making the point that I think this is not entirely true. If the ID people define their idea in opposition to evolution, then the fact that one accepts evolution means one denies ID.

Further, I would actually say that ID DOES make falsiable predictions, most of which have in fact been falsified. Consider the irreducible complexity of the eyeball argument. The proposition is 'it couldn't have evolved because it's so complex'. And yet it is trivial to provide a hypothetical evolutionary pathway for the eyeball (This pathway doesn't need to be the actual one, because ID claims there is NO such pathway).

Now admittedly, any falsified prediction will be replaced by another, and there is no way to falsify the theory as a whole, since the theory isn't "eyeballs couldn't have evolved", it's "surely, SOMETHING we can find couldn't have evolved". And of course, this is the concession that was made to ensure that the theory couldn't be falsified. Basically, ID'ers are creationists, and they know that any falsifiable prediction they make will be shown wrong.

I think the drivers of the ID movement know very well it isn't scientific. They know they are trying to preach creationism. They don't really want to debate scientists about this, they want to fight a PR battle and influence the ignorant to adopt this in schools.

Of course, once they've convinced the ignorant that it's science, those folks go out and try and argue the point, but I don't believe that guys at the top want to engage in any real debate about the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear what you are saying. I just disagree. Even if it explicitly says "This cannot be true if evolution is true," which maybe it does and maybe it doesn't, that doesn't mean its wrong. Its just VERY likely to be wrong. Its still possible that the theory of evolution isn't correct, and its certainly possible that the EXACT theory of evolution that most people would consider the current one is incorrect. It doesn't matter though. It is still very practical, fits all the observations, and makes all the predictions we need it to. So who cares if its wrong?

I might be using confusing words that make it seem like I don't 'believe in evolution.' I don't believe in it really, I just use it. Imagine the scenario that our current theory of evolution is exactly right except for one little detail...its invisible green fairies that are assisting. Now, these are indetectable, but they actually ARE there. This means that our theory of evolution is wrong, because it doesn't include these...but so what? All of our scientific theories suffer from the same vulnerability...but so what? I absolutely do not deny ID...it could very well be true. But we'd never know.

You make a good point when you say that ID supporters claim it opposes evolution. But unless it does so in a specific way that is falsifiable or makes predictions about where evolution will fail...then I think they are lying. It really DOESNT contradict ToE. They can say it does all they want but they are wrong. If the only way it contradicts evolution is in the wording, i.e. "This can only be right if evolution is wrong," then thats fine, since its possible evolution is wrong. I don't deny that.

[vhawk01]

Further point about the predictions that ID makes:

I think they do a good job of making them pseudo-predictions. If they actually hinged their theory on the fact that no eye could ever have developed in slow gradual steps, then I agree it would be falsifiable and falsified. For instance, Darwin said this EXACT thing, saying that if ever an adaption was found that could not be explained by gradual, stepwise improvements then the whole of ToE would be thrown out.

I think IDers make predictions. I dont think ID does. IDers are then wrong, but ID might not be. Just like there probably ARE evolutionists who are fanatical, religious evolutionists. And just like its frustrating when theists use those near-strawmen as a rhetorical tool, we should avoid falling into the same trap.

[CallMeIshmael]

Evo-creation,

what would it take to prove to you there is no God?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you're trying to gloss over a real debate by subtlely redefining ID. From Wikipedia...
"Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.' "

At least under THIS definition, it explicitly conflicts with accepted theories of evolution. It's not a theory without consequence. To accept evolution IS to deny ID, and I don't think many ID proponents or scientists would disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it conflicts with TOE, but as vhawk said it doesn't predict. And unfortunately - that's science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yes, but vhawk also said that 'he and others' don't deny ID, they just dismiss it (because it's not science). I'm just making the point that I think this is not entirely true. If the ID people define their idea in opposition to evolution, then the fact that one accepts evolution means one denies ID.

Further, I would actually say that ID DOES make falsiable predictions, most of which have in fact been falsified. Consider the irreducible complexity of the eyeball argument. The proposition is 'it couldn't have evolved because it's so complex'. And yet it is trivial to provide a hypothetical evolutionary pathway for the eyeball (This pathway doesn't need to be the actual one, because ID claims there is NO such pathway).

Now admittedly, any falsified prediction will be replaced by another, and there is no way to falsify the theory as a whole, since the theory isn't "eyeballs couldn't have evolved", it's "surely, SOMETHING we can find couldn't have evolved". And of course, this is the concession that was made to ensure that the theory couldn't be falsified. Basically, ID'ers are creationists, and they know that any falsifiable prediction they make will be shown wrong.

I think the drivers of the ID movement know very well it isn't scientific. They know they are trying to preach creationism. They don't really want to debate scientists about this, they want to fight a PR battle and influence the ignorant to adopt this in schools.

Of course, once they've convinced the ignorant that it's science, those folks go out and try and argue the point, but I don't believe that guys at the top want to engage in any real debate about the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're dead right that IDers are fighting a PR campaign and an extremely dishonest one as they know full well that ID is not science. I wonder if they believe that god wants them to be dishonest in the cause or if its purely political.

The point about dismissing ID because its not falsifiable is true in general terms. There's no experiment that could ever falsify the claim that there is an intelligent designer. Its true that some of the specific claims made at times by IDers are falsifiable but falsifying them is a matter of complete indifference to IDers - this is a key characteristic of dishonest argument.

chez