|
|
#11
03-20-2007, 12:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is Biological Life the Product of Intelligent Design?
[ QUOTE ]
If naturalism is truly insufficient to explain biological complexity, why can't it be readily and trivially falsified everywhere we look? [/ QUOTE ] Would you mind specifying a necessary characteristic of a non-naturalistic biological entity? 
|
|
#12
03-20-2007, 12:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is Biological Life the Product of Intelligent Design?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If naturalism is truly insufficient to explain biological complexity, why can't it be readily and trivially falsified everywhere we look? [/ QUOTE ] Would you mind specifying a necessary characteristic of a non-naturalistic entity? [/ QUOTE ] No can do. However, say biological life was in fact replete with "irreducible complexity"...then we would not have a naturalistic explanation for life, and a supernatural explanation would be best. Yes? Edit - by "naturalism", I'm referring to a methodology, in case that wasn't clear.
|
|
#13
03-20-2007, 12:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is Biological Life the Product of Intelligent Design?
[ QUOTE ]
Join us on Thursday, March 29 as Kirk Durston, Intelligent Design (ID) Speaker, addresses the issue of ID in biological life, explaning how it is the best explanation for the information encoded within the genomes of life. Time: 7:30-9:30pm; Kirk will do a one hour presentation followed by a question and answer session lasting no longer than one hour. --- I know what his stance is, what are some likely questions I could ask during the Q&A session? [/ QUOTE ] Look, the man is a liar. His goal is to convince people. If he is even a half-assed speaker, any question you ask he will turn into an inane argument for ID. If you ask about peer-reviewed studies, he will say "well, there are lots of peer reviewed articles about ID!" He will probably even give some examples that sound impressive. End result...an audience of monkeys that believe there ARE peer-reviewed studies. I would say, absolutely don't waste your time. If you do, it would probably be most valuable just to snort/laugh loudly every few minutes... You know, this is easily the most dishonest religious movement ever. There are all sorts of denial, but these guys are knowingly lying to try to convert children and the child-like (like our good friend above), and it is [censored] sick.
|
|
#14
03-20-2007, 12:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is Biological Life the Product of Intelligent Design?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If naturalism is truly insufficient to explain biological complexity, why can't it be readily and trivially falsified everywhere we look? [/ QUOTE ] Would you mind specifying a necessary characteristic of a non-naturalistic entity? [/ QUOTE ] No can do. However, say biological life was in fact replete with "irreducible complexity"...then we would not have a naturalistic explanation for life, and a supernatural explanation would be best. Yes? Edit - by "naturalism", I'm referring to a methodology, in case that wasn't clear. [/ QUOTE ] Sort of, but life has not, in fact, been shown to be reducible to universally observable (i.e. including outside life itself) properties of nature. The claim is made on occasion, yet no such details have been published.
|
|
#15
03-20-2007, 02:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is Biological Life the Product of Intelligent Design?
Ask him why so many species have gone extinct if they were intelligently designed.
Ask him if he supports the "biblicly correct" museum tours that tell people dinosaurs are only 6000 years old? (this will see how religiously motivated he is) I find it evil to spew nonsense to impressionable children, using false info to fit your holy "facts" is really low.
|
|
#16
03-20-2007, 02:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is Biological Life the Product of Intelligent Design?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Ask him to explain carrot top  [/ QUOTE ] Mother of god...is that legit? He is RIPPED! [/ QUOTE ] its legit...remember seeing it back a couple years, not sure if hes still in that shape.
|
|
#17
03-20-2007, 10:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is Biological Life the Product of Intelligent Design?
Ask him how he sleeps at night when he is peddling religious nonsense as science and destroying the ability of impressionable young students to learn how to think critically and apply the scientific method.
|
|
#18
03-20-2007, 12:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is Biological Life the Product of Intelligent Design?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Ask him to explain carrot top [/ QUOTE ] Mother of god...is that legit? He is RIPPED! [/ QUOTE ] its legit...remember seeing it back a couple years, not sure if hes still in that shape. [/ QUOTE ] How else is he gonna get laid? As for the ID debate - don't waste your time. You will convice no one that he's full of [censored] and you will look the fool.
|
|
#19
03-20-2007, 02:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is Biological Life the Product of Intelligent Design?
[ QUOTE ]
Sort of, but life has not, in fact, been shown to be reducible to universally observable (i.e. including outside life itself) properties of nature. [/ QUOTE ] Science doesn't work on a basis of verificationism---it works on a basis of falsifiability. Thus, it doesn't matter that naturalism has not been proven (i.e., verified) to be a sufficient explanation for life. It never will be; nor will anything, even the principle of causality, ever be proven on a verificationist basis. Scientifically, what matters is that naturalism has not been falsified as being a possible sufficient explanation for life. My point was that, if naturalism really is insufficient, why is it not trivial to demonstrate it as such?
|
|
#20
03-20-2007, 04:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is Biological Life the Product of Intelligent Design?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Sort of, but life has not, in fact, been shown to be reducible to universally observable (i.e. including outside life itself) properties of nature. [/ QUOTE ] Science doesn't work on a basis of verificationism---it works on a basis of falsifiability. [/ QUOTE ] Just so we're on the same page, please give an example of a scientific proposition that can't be invalidated though the verification principle. [ QUOTE ] Thus, it doesn't matter that naturalism has not been proven (i.e., verified) to be a sufficient explanation for life. [/ QUOTE ] It matters a great deal. It shows that the property of "naturalism" as being sufficient for life does not have an empirical basis. [ QUOTE ] It never will be; nor will anything, even the principle of causality, ever be proven on a verificationist basis. [/ QUOTE ] Then forget verificationism. Show me the observational evidence establishing the reducibility of life to universally observable "natural" (whatever that is) properties. [ QUOTE ] Scientifically, what matters is that naturalism has not been falsified as being a possible sufficient explanation for life. [/ QUOTE ] That could be said about a lot of things. [ QUOTE ] My point was that, if naturalism really is insufficient, why is it not trivial to demonstrate it as such? [/ QUOTE ] Because you haven't defined biological "naturalism" in a way that can be observationally falsified.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
