NationStates Jolt Archive

When we assume something, we render it true. If it isn't true, we cannot proceed on (or with) that assumption.

Whether or not it is actually true is another matter.

Exactly, so I.D. can be an empirical investigation then. You've basically said that, a priori we give an assumption a truth value of 'T' but that a posteriori we don't know yet. Science is concerned with a posteriori claims, so it doesn't matter what we claim a priori.



The hypothesis that states that there is a design to be found in nature means that the designer of nature is true.

If, on the other hand, you are saying that you are proceeding with a blatently false assumption in your hypothesis, then that's not science either.

A posterori counts, assume what you like prior to investigation. No I.Der who is concerned with whether a designer exists is going to say, "it is true independent of the evidence" no matter what they think about the assumptions. If they do, then they are not true I.D.ers.

To be perfectly correct, we say, If the assumption is true and the evidence supports the assumption, then the conclusion is true. No one (respectable) ever just states, the assumption is true. We always use conditionals (If...then).

You took the statement incorrectly then.
I quite deliberately responded to your question of my agreement with a statement of negative disagreement to be clear that while I wasn't certain we were in agreement, I could not see anything to disagree with.

The wording of the positions in this thread can often sound quite similar, yet be very far apart in their implications.
And a double-negative has no implications to someone who is schooled in the Western world? :-)

Quite honestly, I can't really tell what side of the discussion you are on.
That's because, I suspect, the argument you argue against is one of your own making.

I'm assuming that a designer is possible, I'm not assuming the designer exists.

As for what Dem was saying, here's where she and I began:
Actually, you've got it backwards. You see, something cannot imply design unless you first assume the existence of a possible designer. Those who support ID do not support it because they have seen evidence of a design which then implied a designer. That would be logically backwards. Instead, they see evidence of design because they have assumed the existence of a designer.

Note the bolded parts where Dem states that I must assume the existence of a designer and where she states the position opposed to her is logically backwards, logically impossible and circular logic. She is definitely critiqueing the logic.
You do assume the designer exists, not just "is possible the designer exists". You've stated as such many times. The designer is inherent in the concept of design. If you disagree with that, please let me now, as you do appear to have agreed with it earlier --or at least, you found nothing to disagree with in it.

Herein is the meat of our disagreement.

It is logically backwards to assume the designer only after one has found design. The designer is inherent in the whole concept of design.

If you disagree with that, please let me know plainly.

I'm not entirely certain why you want to distinguish between being not scientific and not logical, but Dem is definitely saying it's not logical.
Science is founded in the philosophy of logic, but science is not logic. Dem argues for science.

Dem is a good scientist.

But really, please, can we drop whatever Dem was saying, and if you have a poin to make, or if you want to disagree with anything I'm saying, can we have our own discussion instead of retracing the Dem conversation??
Well, since "what Dem was saying" was my only beef, I don't believe we ourselves would have much to discuss if we dropped it.

When we assume something, we render it true. If it isn't true, we cannot proceed on (or with) that assumption.

Whether or not it is actually true is another matter.
Exactly, so I.D. can be an empirical investigation then. You've basically said that, a priori we give an assumption a truth value of 'T' but that a posteriori we don't know yet. Science is concerned with a posteriori claims, so it doesn't matter what we claim a priori.
Of course, it matters to a scientific hypothesis if truth in the assumption we include as a priori is actually true.

Otherwise, we are just discussing philosophy.

The hypothesis that states that there is a design to be found in nature means that the designer of nature is true.

If, on the other hand, you are saying that you are proceeding with a blatently false assumption in your hypothesis, then that's not science either.
A posterori counts, assume what you like prior to investigation. No I.D. who is concerned with whether a designer exists is going to say, "it is true independent of the evidence" no matter what they think about the assumptions. If they do, then they are not true I.D.ers.
A posterori counts scientifically assuming that what you assume has already been demonstrated to be valid. God has not been demonstated to be valid. A designer of nature has not been demonstrated to be valid --we have perfectly good explanations for natural things that we don't a supernatural explanation, and those we can't explain we can safely assume can be explained in the future.

There is no real reason to assume a supernatural designer.

Of course, it matters to a scientific hypothesis if truth if the assumption we include as a priori is actually true.

Can you rewrite this part, as I don't understand what your objection is in relation to what I've already said.

A posterori counts scientifically assuming that what you assume has already been demonstrated to be valid. God has not been demonstated to be valid. A designer of nature has not been demonstrated to be valid --we have perfectly good explanations for natural things that we don't a supernatural explanation, and those we can't explain we can safely assume can be explained in the future.

There is no real reason to assume a supernatural designer.

Darwinism was assumed first before it was tested. "There is no real reason to assume a supernatural designer". Why not?

And a double-negative has no implications to someone who is schooled in the Western world? :-)


You're going to need to fill me in on what you are implying then.


That's because, I suspect, the argument you argue against is one of your own making.


Not possible.
I made a claim, others such as Dem and GMC have made arguments against it.
Since both have regularly told me I'm wrong, illogical or have it backwards, I'm confident that the arguement is not one of my making, they really do have a different view on the matter.


You do assume the designer exists,

No, I do not. I only assume the possibility.


not just "is possible the designer exists".

No, that is precisely what I have consistently said. You can read in the recently quoted conversation between myself and Dem.


You've stated as such many times.

No, I have stated the opposite, every time.


The designer is inherent in the concept of design.

Yes, I agree with that. You cannot have design without a designer.


If you disagree with that, please let me now, as you do appear to have agreed with it earlier --or at least, you found nothing to disagree with in it.


I've stated my agreement or disagreement with each line so far.


Herein is the meat of our disagreement.

It is logically backwards to assume the designer only after one has found design. The designer is inherent in the whole concept of design.

If you disagree with that, please let me know plainly.


I assume the possibility of a designer before, not after.
I conclude the existence of a designer after finding design, because the designer is inherent to design.

That's as plainly as I can put it, but I can't say whether that disagrees with you or not, I find your wording vague. It may be clear to you, but if so, we are operating on different definitions or at least different connotations.


Science is founded in the philosophy of logic, but science is not logic. Dem argues for science.

Dem is a good scientist.


In your opinion she is. But she is clearly arguing here for logic, as I quoted for you to see. (I'm not implying that arguing for logic is bad, just pointing out that you were incorrect when you said that's not what she was doing)

Poor Willamena, so much to respond to.

There is no legal reason why science teachers should not teach the contraversy over the origin of the human race. It is just that simple, it has nothing to do with the first Amendment or religion in the science class. It has to do with a contraversial subject that science cannot answer that will come up in discussions relating to science in science classes. To outlaw free discussion of the contraversy on the part of a science teacher and his students is an outragous example of censorship in the classroom.

Willamena is right, if this is his/her claim, that science is not founded upon logic. Logic is deductive, science is inductive. Inductive logic is not successful.

There is no legal reason why science teachers should not teach the contraversy over the origin of the human race. It is just that simple, it has nothing to do with the first Amendment or religion in the science class. It has to do with a contraversial subject that science cannot answer that will come up in discussions relating to science in science classes. To outlaw free discussion of the contraversy on the part of a science teacher and his students is an outragous example of censorship in the classroom.

Oh we're argiung Law now? OK, say you're right. What has that go to do with the current discussion, which has to do with, basically, the foundations of science?

Can you rewrite this part, as I don't understand what your objection is in relation to what I've already said.
While it is possible for a person to assume anything one likes in any instances, scientific hypotheses assume things that have been demonstrated scientifically to be "not false".

For instance, a hypothesis can be created that assumes the theory of gravity, and the theory of gravity has not been demonstrated to be false in any way. In the experiment suggested by the hypothesis, it is not necessary to demonstrate gravity because gravity is assumed.

Darwinism was assumed first before it was tested.
"Darwinism" did not exist until after Mr. Darwin put forth his ideas, and they were rejected by Creationists of the time. His actual ideas were based on his observations.

"There is no real reason to assume a supernatural designer". Why not?
Good question. While we have a natural explanation of nature in the "Big Bang", it only provides an explanation *since* the explosion, not for the explosion.

To date, we have no valid explanation for nature. That alone is not a reason to assume that the explanation is supernatural or natural.

This is an issue of censhorship of discussion in the classroom and I find the side that wants to remove what most people believe ( creationism) from that discussion out of political motivation a wrong one.

Willamena is right, if this is his/her claim, that science is not founded upon logic. Logic is deductive, science is inductive. Inductive logic is not successful.
That is nothing I said.

Oh we're argiung Law now? OK, say you're right. What has that go to do with the current discussion, which has to do with, basically, the foundations of science?
because that foundations of science and your semantic nitpicking arguments have nothing to do with the contraversy of I.D. and creationisms. Whether they fit into scientific theory is not relavent. Science can neither prove or disprove the existance of an intelligent creator. What the left is pushing is a ban on discussion of intelligent design. The things that you are arguing about are deep and sem-thoughtful semantic discussions, but they have nothing to do with the ultimate issue at hand, and that is academic freedom.

Willamena is right, if this is his/her claim, that science is not founded upon logic. Logic is deductive, science is inductive. Inductive logic is not successful.


Hmm, hard to say, she did say that science is founded on the philosophy of logic.

You cannot prove or disprove the existance of an intelligent creator. neither side can ultimatly win their case because the existance of God is somthing that is above the level of science. But when the topic comes up in class, a teacher is supposed to suppress one side of the argument ....how unethical.

You cannot prove or disprove the existance of an intelligent creator. neither side can ultimatly win their case because the existance of God is somthing that is above the level of science. But when the topic comes up in class, a teacher is supposed to suppress one side of the argument ....how unethical.

You admit that the subject does not belong to science.

So why should a science teacher allow time in science class to be spent on a subject that is not science?

It is not unethical to demand that a teacher do his job, which is teach science, not spend class time on subjects unrelated to that.

While it is possible for a person to assume anything one likes in any instances, scientific hypotheses assume things that have been demonstrated scientifically to be "not false".

For instance, a hypothesis can be created that assumes the theory of gravity, and the theory of gravity has not been demonstrated to be false in any way. In the experiment suggested by the hypothesis, it is not necessary to demonstrate gravity because gravity is assumed.

I agree, we could, conceivably do this with a designer hypothses also. Assume a designer as part of a cosmological theory. If what you say is true about how a hypothesis is confirmed (i.e. that it isn't confirmed, but merely disconfirmed), then why can't we do the same the same with a designer hypothsis -- at least we can try it.

"Darwinism" did not exist until after Mr. Darwin put forth his ideas, and they were rejected by Creationists of the time. His actual ideas were based on his observations.

Indeed they were based on observations. That's what someone who comes from a teleological point of view is going to claim also.


Good question. While we have a natural explanation of nature in the "Big Bang", it only provides an explanation *since* the explosion, not for the explosion.

To date, we have no valid explanation for nature. That alone is not a reason to assume that the explanation is supernatural or natural.

Any I.D.er that turns around and claims that because we don't have a sufficient explanation as to why something occurs it must be God, is irresponsible and I'm not endorsing this -- otherwise, I would understand why so many Americans drive SUVs. the whole point, in my view, is that science goes with what expalins things best and, at its base, it envokes occam's razor. However, neither of these things has to do with what is true. It may be true that a designer created the universe and I don't think that this should be beyond the scope of science. I've heard many people claim that it is, but I don't understand why.

Hmm, hard to say, she did say that science is founded on the philosophy of logic.

No, it isn't. Logic is its own language.

because that foundations of science and your semantic nitpicking arguments have nothing to do with the contraversy of I.D. and creationisms. Whether they fit into scientific theory is not relavent. Science can neither prove or disprove the existance of an intelligent creator. What the left is pushing is a ban on discussion of intelligent design. The things that you are arguing about are deep and sem-thoughtful semantic discussions, but they have nothing to do with the ultimate issue at hand, and that is academic freedom.

Well, unfortunately for you, science is concerned with what it can and cannot disprove. If yours is the typical IDers stance, then there is no way you should be allowed anywhere near a classroom. I'm absolutely uninterested in discussing politics in relation to this matter.

You're going to need to fill me in on what you are implying then.

Not possible.
I made a claim, others such as Dem and GMC have made arguments against it.
Since both have regularly told me I'm wrong, illogical or have it backwards, I'm confident that the arguement is not one of my making, they really do have a different view on the matter.

No, I do not. I only assume the possibility.

No, that is precisely what I have consistently said. You can read in the recently quoted conversation between myself and Dem.

No, I have stated the opposite, every time.

Yes, I agree with that. You cannot have design without a designer.

I've stated my agreement or disagreement with each line so far.
"Cannot have design without the designer" = "the designer is inherent in the design".

Your inconsistency is in insisting that the designer who we *must have* is "only a possibility" that we must have. If it is only possible we must have the designer, then there is a possibility that a design exists that does not have a designer.

If you disagree with that, then I must conclude that you are insane, and I will withdraw from this conversation with a happy "Good day!" (as Dem has).

There is no legal reason why science teachers should not teach the contraversy over the origin of the human race. It is just that simple, it has nothing to do with the first Amendment or religion in the science class. It has to do with a contraversial subject that science cannot answer that will come up in discussions relating to science in science classes. To outlaw free discussion of the contraversy on the part of a science teacher and his students is an outragous example of censorship in the classroom.
Teaching in public schools has nothing to do with "no legal reason" and everything to do with "the legal reason".

A teacher may present his or her own opinion on religion, but stating it as a learned and cirruculumed fact is another thing.

This is an issue of censhorship of discussion in the classroom and I find the side that wants to remove what most people believe ( creationism) from that discussion out of political motivation a wrong one.
Most people do not assume Creationism. Most people want to make up their own minds.

You cannot prove or disprove the existance of an intelligent creator. neither side can ultimatly win their case because the existance of God is somthing that is above the level of science. But when the topic comes up in class, a teacher is supposed to suppress one side of the argument ....how unethical.

Why is it above the level of science. This is such a received statement. Tell me why it is.

"Cannot have design without the designer" = "the designer is inherent in the design".


OK, if you say so. I wouldn't use the wording you do, but you are welcome to it I guess.


Your inconsistency is in insisting that the designer who we *must have* is "only a possibility" that we must have.

That's not my inconsistency because I'm not insisting that.
I know that's not what I'm insisting because I don't even know what that means.


If it is only possible we must have the designer,

Again, no idea what this phrase means.


then there is a possibility that a design exists that does not have a designer.


No, there is no possibility of a design without a designer.


If you disagree with that, then I must conclude that you are insane, and I will withdraw from this conversation with a happy "Good day!" (as Dem has).

I still don't understand why Dem keeps coming into it, but do what you must.

I agree, we could, conceivably do this with a designer hypothses also. Assume a designer as part of a cosmological theory. If what you say is true about how a hypothesis is confirmed (i.e. that it isn't confirmed, but merely [not] disconfirmed), then why can't we do the same the same with a designer hypothsis -- at least we can try it.
Let's look at this logically.

A hypothesis that says "something will happen because of gravity" is valid because gravity is valid. It relies on the theory that gravity makes things fall down, and has not been disproven.

A hypothesis that says, 'this thing is a design, because a universal designer is" relies on a lot more. It falls down, because we have no evidence of a universal designer.

Indeed they were based on observations. That's what someone who comes from a teleological point of view is going to claim also.
The difference being that Darwin's observations were based on physical evidence.
1. All species have such great potential fertility that their population size would increase exponentially if all individuals that are born go on to reproduce successfully.
2. Populations tend to remain stable in size, except for seasonal fluctuations.
3. Environmental resources for things such as food and shelter are limited.
4. Individuals of a population vary extensively in their characteristics (to the extent that no two individuals are exactly alike) which impacts upon their own ability to survive and reproduce.
5. Much of this variation is genetic and is therefore heritable.
http://evolution.massey.ac.nz/assign2/NM/darwinth.htm

The person with the teleological argument is claiming otherwise: that since it *appears* to be designed, it must be designed.

From Wikipedia: "For example, naturalism would say that a person has sight simply because they have eyes. In other words, function follows form (eyesight follows from having eyes). Teleology is the reverse of this position: a person has eyes because they have the need of eyesight. In this case, form follows function (eyes follow from having the need for eyesight)."

Any I.D.er that turns around and claims that because we don't have a sufficient explanation as to why something occurs it must be God, is irresponsible and I'm not endorsing this -- otherwise, I would understand why so many Americans drive SUVs. the whole point, in my view, is that science goes with what expalins things best and, at its base, it envokes occam's razor. However, neither of these things has to do with what is true. It may be true that a designer created the universe and I don't think that this should be beyond the scope of science. I've heard many people claim that it is, but I don't understand why.
Science goes with what explains things best scientifically, Occam's Razor be damned.

You cannot prove or disprove the existance of an intelligent creator. neither side can ultimatly win their case because the existance of God is somthing that is above the level of science. But when the topic comes up in class, a teacher is supposed to suppress one side of the argument ....how unethical.
If the teacher is worth his weight, he will present both sides and aguments for and against each.

I agree, we could, conceivably do this with a designer hypothses also. Assume a designer as part of a cosmological theory. If what you say is true about how a hypothesis is confirmed (i.e. that it isn't confirmed, but merely disconfirmed), then why can't we do the same the same with a designer hypothsis -- at least we can try it.
A designer of nature has not been demonstrated in any way.

Indeed they were based on observations. That's what someone who comes from a teleological point of view is going to claim also.
It is my understanding that the teleological argument is basically: it looks designed, therefore it must be designed.

the whole point, in my view, is that science goes with what expalins things best and, at its base, it envokes occam's razor. However, neither of these things has to do with what is true. It may be true that a designer created the universe and I don't think that this should be beyond the scope of science. I've heard many people claim that it is, but I don't understand why.
Aye; it may be true that a designer created the universe, and that what we see in the design if evidence of him. But that will never be a scientific analysis.

If we endorse science, then we say that we know the designer.

No, there is no possibility of a design without a designer.
Then you appear to agree with Dem. So why are you disputing her?

Let's look at this logically.

A hypothesis that says "something will happen because of gravity" is valid because gravity is valid. It relies on the theory that gravity makes things fall down, and has not been disproven.

A hypothesis that says, 'this thing is a design, because a universal designer is" relies on a lot more. It falls down, because we have no evidence of a universal designer.

How do you initially "know" that gravity is "valid". Yes, it relies on a theory. Why can't I.D. rely on a theory, also? At the beginning, you don't have any evidence of gravity other than your senses. I.D.ers would invoke teleology which appeals to the senses, also.




The difference being that Darwin's observations were based on physical evidence.
1. All species have such great potential fertility that their population size would increase exponentially if all individuals that are born go on to reproduce successfully.
2. Populations tend to remain stable in size, except for seasonal fluctuations.
3. Environmental resources for things such as food and shelter are limited.
4. Individuals of a population vary extensively in their characteristics (to the extent that no two individuals are exactly alike) which impacts upon their own ability to survive and reproduce.
5. Much of this variation is genetic and is therefore heritable.
http://evolution.massey.ac.nz/assign2/NM/darwinth.htm.

The person with the teleological argument is claiming otherwise: that since it *appears* to be designed, it must be designed.

From Wikipedia: "For example, naturalism would say that a person has sight simply because they have eyes. In other words, function follows form (eyesight follows from having eyes). Teleology is the reverse of this position: a person has eyes because they have the need of eyesight. In this case, form follows function (eyes follow from having the need for eyesight)."

Actually, of all the arguments for God's existence that you can come across, the teleological argument has an inductive conclusion. The conclusion states that, a designer likely exists. It is inductive because, at base, it relies on the senses, which are empirical instruments. The conclusion is by no means a "must" or necessary conclusion.

The wiki quote is a bit of a chicken or the egg problem. However, for an empirical examination of whether a designer exists, we do not need to claim that the universe needs design. I mean, I could state that a designer follows from having design, which is a sort of substitution for "eyesight follows from having eyes). Indeed, some could go further, "an apprehension of God comes from having the cognitive capacity that allows one to perceive God" (you know those people who have had religious experience). In any case, we should flesh this out a bit (may be you can help me), evolution has a form, a structure, that was conceiced before any testing was done, may be even by Darwin himself. I guess we need to state what function is and how it relates to form.




Science goes with what explains things best scientifically, Occam's Razor be damned.

Hey, not fair: Scientology explains things Scientoloically. There are a lot of assumptions with science that are up for debate and probably a lot of scientists don't know that they are there. Many scientists operate pragmatically and with what works without caring a dam for what is true -- this may not be bad.

How do you initially "know" that gravity is "valid". Yes, it relies on a theory. Why can't I.D. rely on a theory, also? At the beginning, you don't have any evidence of gravity other than your senses. I.D.ers would invoke teleology which appeals to the senses, also.

ID is not a theory, it is at best a hypothesis. If I want to test for gravity, I first come up with an experiment. Definition - gravity, a force which makes things fall. Experiment - drop a rock and see if it falls. Conclusion - rock falls.

ID presents a hypothesis, a creator, but then gives no method of going about finding it.

ID is not a theory, it is at best a hypothesis. If I want to test for gravity, I first come up with an experiment. Definition - gravity, a force which makes things fall. Experiment - drop a rock and see if it falls. Conclusion - rock falls.

ID presents a hypothesis, a creator, but then gives no method of going about finding it.

OK it's a hypothesis, I know what you think a theory is. I'm using theory in the sense of model. Anyway, thanks for admitting it can be an hypothsis. Well, we can find a method -- that's not the point; if you're against I.D., you don't want to admit that it is anything but philosophy at best. Admitting that I.D. is a hypothesis is a lot.

How do you initially "know" that gravity is "valid". Yes, it relies on a theory. Why can't I.D. rely on a theory, also? At the beginning, you don't have any evidence of gravity other than your senses. I.D.ers would invoke teleology which appeals to the senses, also.
Senses count, at least with me.

We initially know the theory of gravity is valid because we have never observed things to fall "up". Never. Narry a once.

We rely on the theory because of what we *have* observed it to be true.

ID can rely on a theory that has not been observed.

Can we rely on the theory that some intelligence created the universe, as opposed to the theory that the universe occured naturally? We can know that A leads to B leads to C. We cannot know that Mr. X creates A.

Actually, of all the arguments for God's existence that you can come across, the teleological argument has an inductive conclusion. The conclusion states that, a designer likely exists. It is inductive because, at base, it relies on the senses, which are empirical instruments. The conclusion is by no means a "must" or necessary conclusion.
But in order for it to be subject to logic, it must be a "must". If we have a design, there must be a designer.

And if we have this idea that God is not subject to logic, then we must throw out all logic as being invalid to accomodate reality, because if there is a creature in this universe who can supercede logic, and then we are self-defeating.

That's not a good thing.

The wiki quote is a bit of a chicken or the egg problem. However, for an empirical examination of whether a designer exists, we do not need to claim that the universe needs design. I mean, I could state that a designer follows from having design, which is a sort of substitution for "eyesight follows from having eyes). Indeed, some could go further, "an apprehension of God comes from having the cognitive capacity that allows one to perceive God" (you know those people who have had religious experience). In any case, we should flesh this out a bit (may be you can help me), evolution has a form, a structure, that was conceiced before any testing was done, may be even by Darwin himself. I guess we need to state what function is and how it relates to form.
Are we talking about actuality or just a part of it?

I am glad we can agree that the teleogical argument is invalid. Apperances, though they have use, are not reality. Reality has a very specific use.

My stance is similar: that we do not create reality. No silopsism for me.

Hey, not fair: Scientology explains things Scientoloically. There are a lot of assumptions with science that are up for debate and probably a lot of scientists don't know that they are there. Many scientists operate pragmatically and with what works without caring a dam for what is true -- this may not be bad.
I'm not familar with all that is Scientology, but I can assure you that an assumption that there is a creator is not scientific.

OK it's a hypothesis, I know what you think a theory is. I'm using theory in the sense of model. Anyway, thanks for admitting it can be an hypothsis. Well, we can find a method -- that's not the point; if you're against I.D., you don't want to admit that it is anything but philosophy at best. Admitting that I.D. is a hypothesis is a lot.
It's not even a hypothesis.

A hypothesis presents:
1. an idea being tested.
2. a means of testing it.
3. the desired out outcome.

It's not even a hypothesis.

A hypothesis presents:
1. an idea being tested.
2. a means of testing it.
3. the desired out outcome.

What's string theory, then? Within a scientific context, that is.

What's string theory, then? Within a scientific context, that is.
I have no idea what string theory is, but how does that relate to what we are discussing?

It seems like you just don't want to answer, so are diverting the discussion to other things.

What's string theory, then? Within a scientific context, that is.

We've been over this. String theory...is a theory.

It present a hypothesis.

It tests that hypothesis.

The conclusion of the test provides evidence to suggest it.

The tests are repeatable.

Just because the tests are mathematic in nature not emperical in nature does not mean that they don't exist, despite however much you try to ignore them.

OK it's a hypothesis, I know what you think a theory is. I'm using theory in the sense of model. Anyway, thanks for admitting it can be an hypothsis. Well, we can find a method -- that's not the point; if you're against I.D., you don't want to admit that it is anything but philosophy at best. Admitting that I.D. is a hypothesis is a lot.
Well technically speaking, a hypothesis isn't anything. Quite literally anything can be a hypothesis. I can hypothesis that an apple is red when it is angry at me, and green when the tree is feeling sick. That doesn't make me anywhere near to the truth, but it's a hypothesis I can present. This is why I.D. fails so badly. You simply cannot teach an untestable hypothesis, because an untestable hypothesis is basically an opinion, nothing more.

For example, let's say we accept I.D. completely, and do away with evolution altogether. Suddenly a new controversy emerges: People are calling for a definitive teaching of who the designer is. One group presents the hypothesis of a Christian-like God, another group the hypothesis of a flying spaghetti monster. Both are built upon untestable hypotheses, and as such are equally valid. Or to present the argument in another slightly different way, let's say we accept I.D. completely. By doing this, it thereby becomes necessary to teach EVERY other hypothesis put forward, even those that are not testable. If a group supports teaching that the world does not in fact exist, but we are all in fact in the Dreamtime, this hypothesis bears the same weight as I.D. and would need to be taught alongside it.

What gives evolution it's strength is the fact it is the only true scientific theory of life. It can be tested, and in reality for the non-theologists, it can e relatively easily proven. For example, one of the first things that moved Darwin to propose evolution was finches on the Galapagos Islands. Recently, new species of larger birds have moved onto the Galapagos, causing competition with one group of finches for their food supply. Previously this finch species had eaten both large and small nuts. However, the new competition has really reduced the availability of large nuts, leaving finches with oversized beaks unable to find enough food (they cannot eat the small nuts as well as the smaller beaked finches). As such, the finch population has already begun to trend towards smaller beaks, with the ratio dropping from 1:1 in terms of small to big beaks, to closer to 3:1 (again small to big). This is literally within a span of years, not centuries by any margin, yet already a major feature of this species has changed due to...natural selection.

OK it's a hypothesis, I know what you think a theory is. I'm using theory in the sense of model. Anyway, thanks for admitting it can be an hypothsis. Well, we can find a method -- that's not the point; if you're against I.D., you don't want to admit that it is anything but philosophy at best. Admitting that I.D. is a hypothesis is a lot.

I'm quite comfortable admitting it's a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is worthless.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a hypothesis. The Matrix is a hypothesis. That this is a flat earth is a hypothesis.

I'm fine admitting ID is a hypothesis, a hypothesis without a way to verify it is a worthless one.

If the teacher is worth his weight, he will present both sides and aguments for and against each.

No he won't. A teacher worth his weight will restrict the topic of a science class to matters that deal with science.

Should a topic come up that is beyond science, a teacher worth his salt will state "this is not a question that science can answer" and resume the lesson.

Senses count, at least with me.

We initially know the theory of gravity is valid because we have never observed things to fall "up". Never. Narry a once.

We rely on the theory because of what we *have* observed it to be true.

ID can rely on a theory that has not been observed.

Can we rely on the theory that some intelligence created the universe, as opposed to the theory that the universe occured naturally? We can know that A leads to B leads to C. We cannot know that Mr. X creates A.

You so lie, you've never observed gravity, it's unobsevable. You observe the effects of gravity. Fine, I can observe the effects of a designer. What lead to "A"?

But in order for it to be subject to logic, it must be a "must". If we have a design, there must be a designer.

Precisely, we don't want it to be a deductive argument. No scientific idea is as of now. All scientific ideas are probabilistic. Your statement, "If we have design, there must be a designer" is only false when "We have design" but, there isn't a designer. Logically speaking, you can have a designer without having design --- think about it, the architect that never works.

And if we have this idea that God is not subject to logic, then we must throw out all logic as being invalid to accomodate reality, because if there is a creature in this universe who can supercede logic, and then we are self-defeating.

Even God (the Judeo-Christain kind) isn't above logic.

That's not a good thing.


Are we talking about actuality or just a part of it?

I am glad we can agree that the teleogical argument is invalid. Apperances, though they have use, are not reality. Reality has a very specific use.

My stance is similar: that we do not create reality. No silopsism for me.

I didn't say it was invalid, I said it was inductive -- very different.

I'm not familar with all that is Scientology, but I can assure you that an assumption that there is a creator is not scientific.

What does a scientific assumption look like? How would I recognize it amongst other non-scientific assumptions?

Well technically speaking, a hypothesis isn't anything. Quite literally anything can be a hypothesis. I can hypothesis that an apple is red when it is angry at me, and green when the tree is feeling sick. That doesn't make me anywhere near to the truth, but it's a hypothesis I can present. This is why I.D. fails so badly. You simply cannot teach an untestable hypothesis, because an untestable hypothesis is basically an opinion, nothing more.

For example, let's say we accept I.D. completely, and do away with evolution altogether. Suddenly a new controversy emerges: People are calling for a definitive teaching of who the designer is. One group presents the hypothesis of a Christian-like God, another group the hypothesis of a flying spaghetti monster. Both are built upon untestable hypotheses, and as such are equally valid. Or to present the argument in another slightly different way, let's say we accept I.D. completely. By doing this, it thereby becomes necessary to teach EVERY other hypothesis put forward, even those that are not testable. If a group supports teaching that the world does not in fact exist, but we are all in fact in the Dreamtime, this hypothesis bears the same weight as I.D. and would need to be taught alongside it.

What gives evolution it's strength is the fact it is the only true scientific theory of life. It can be tested, and in reality for the non-theologists, it can e relatively easily proven. For example, one of the first things that moved Darwin to propose evolution was finches on the Galapagos Islands. Recently, new species of larger birds have moved onto the Galapagos, causing competition with one group of finches for their food supply. Previously this finch species had eaten both large and small nuts. However, the new competition has really reduced the availability of large nuts, leaving finches with oversized beaks unable to find enough food (they cannot eat the small nuts as well as the smaller beaked finches). As such, the finch population has already begun to trend towards smaller beaks, with the ratio dropping from 1:1 in terms of small to big beaks, to closer to 3:1 (again small to big). This is literally within a span of years, not centuries by any margin, yet already a major feature of this species has changed due to...natural selection.
What he said.

The Matrix is a hypothesis.
A truly great movie, one that I worship but don't believe for a minute that is true.

What he said.

Tell me which page this came from so I can quote it.

What's string theory, then? Within a scientific context, that is.
String theory is very young is what it is. Although Arthais gave a good answer, I'd further point out that string theory is going to be tested hard over the next few decades, in practice as well as theory. For instance, LISA (a massive project to send three satellites into orbit around the sun, which will then link by lasers stretching 3 million miles!) will be able to detect even the tiniest of shifts in the spacing between it's three satellites (up to a tenth of an atom!). These tiny shifts will be analyzed in a measurable way, allowing physicists to understand (in theory) how a gravitational wave works, and depending upon those results could well prove string theory right (among many other things. For instance, among LISA's goals is the hope to understand what happened, quite literally, less than a second after the Big Bang occured, and even theoretically what happened before it occured. Grandious hopes indeed, but fascinating ones). Or there are particle colliders like the Large Hadron that will test what happens when two protons get destroyed in super-energized impact. If string theory is right for instance, super particles would at least momentarily exist after the impact, as the strings would vibrate significantly higher than normal (protons, neutrons, and electrons being results of the lowest energy frequency).

On a side note, the Large Hadron Collider might be the most fascinating thing ever built. Once it is put into action, it will literally be able to measure things we've never come close to before. We're talking energy being produced on the order of trillions of times the power of dynomite, all compressed into super small areas. Hell, some theorize the Large Hadron could produce two things somewhat unintentionally: 1) It may form super-tiny black holes (which would not be dangerous to the Earth), 2)It may create so much energy in it's collisions as to quite literally blow matter out of our dimension (string theory predicts 10 active dimensions). Quite cool stuff.

*Snip the same old tired circular arguements*


Until someone can come up w/ a test for some such "designer", ID doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis.

round and round and round and round.

You so lie, you've never observed gravity, it's unobsevable. You observe the effects of gravity. Fine, I can observe the effects of a designer.

No, you can not. If I see the rock falling I can point to that and say "THAT is conclusive evidence of gravity".

There is NOTHING you can point to in this universe that is a conclusive effect of a designer.

There is NOTHING you can show, that we have discovered yet, that is necessary for there to be a designer.

I'm quite comfortable admitting it's a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is worthless.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a hypothesis. The Matrix is a hypothesis. That this is a flat earth is a hypothesis.

I'm fine admitting ID is a hypothesis, a hypothesis without a way to verify it is a worthless one.

That is an empiricist stance. For example, when empiricists, and they still do, heard of String Theory they derided String Theory as metaphysics because there is no way to test it -- at least at the/this time. Some people are more psychologically brave than other people.

A hypothesis is worthless, you state. It's not worthless at all. It it is a coherent, rational statement about how some aspect of the world operates -- of course, it is supposed to be tested in some way. If that's worthless to you, then fine.

That is an empiricist stance. For example, when empiricists, and they still do, heard of String Theory they derided String Theory as metaphysics because there is no way to test it -- at least at the/this time. Some people are more psychologically brave than other people.

A hypothesis is worthless, you state. It's not worthless at all. It it is a coherent, rational statement about how some aspect of the world operates -- of course, it is supposed to be tested in some way. If that's worthless to you, then fine.

An untestable hypothesis is useless from a scientific perspective. If it can not be tested, it has no value to science.

No, you can not. If I see the rock falling I can point to that and say "THAT is conclusive evidence of gravity".

There is NOTHING you can point to in this universe that is a conclusive effect of a designer.

There is NOTHING you can show, that we have discovered yet, that is necessary for there to be a designer.


No, you infer Gravity. That is, you claim, "it is likely that this concept, gravity, caused that apple to fall on my head". You need to tell me what you mean by "conclusive evidence".

An untestable hypothesis is useless from a scientific perspective. If it can not be tested, it has no value to science.

So, you're not concerned with the nature of reality, you're concerned with what is useful. Is that right?
By the way, be careful, this is your interpretation of science.

You so lie, you've never observed gravity, it's unobsevable. You observe the effects of gravity. Fine, I can observe the effects of a designer. What lead to "A"?
I swear to god, evey time I have jumped off an elevated platform, I have fallen *down*! I have observed gravity in action.

I have also observed god at work, but admit that that is not scientific. I know the difference.

Precisely, we don't want it to be a deductive argument. No scientific idea is as of now. All scientific ideas are probabilistic. Your statement, "If we have design, there must be a designer" is only false when "We have design" but, there isn't a designer. Logically speaking, you can have a designer without having design --- think about it, the architect that never works.
Our wants are irrelevant to science.

We cannot have a design without a designer. Irregardless of whether we "want a designer," there is no scientific evidence of one.

Even God (the Judeo-Christain kind) isn't above logic.

That's not a good thing.
It's a very good thing. God cannot be exempt from logic, for if it exists apart from our creation (as it does) it describes the universe objectively created (by him, if that is your belief).

I didn't say it was invalid, I said it was inductive -- very different.
True; but if it is not required to be a part of reality, then its validity is questionable.

What does a scientific assumption look like? How would I recognize it amongst other non-scientific assumptions?
A scientific assumption holds to things that are testable.

Tell me which page this came from so I can quote it.
Which page of what? *blink*

Oh, okay: page 37 of Id and Creationism thread.

A designer is a noun. The fact that designer will have other traits will in no way negate that it is a designer. You can't show me a 'human' with no other qualities either.

That isn't the issue. The issue is you cannot show me a designer which doesn't have the quality human. Therefore, it's not valid to assume a designer can exist without that quality without first having valid evidence that the new quality and 'designer' are compatible. We can't just use generalisations and word game to 'prove' it.

You're playing a very strange game here now, but to play along, I'm arguing that there are concrete things that have the quality, 'designer'.

No, there are certain concrete things that have that quality. We can't assume other things do just because some things do, that's nonsense.

We cannot prove that HUMAN life native to other planets is possible. That is the only time that the word 'other' has any business being there.

Wrong. Alien life is native to other planets and not our own. Therefore, we are not proof that alien life can exist, as we are not life native to other planets and not our own.

We are life, native to a planet.
That's all we care about, is it possible that life can be native to a planet?
Yes.

Native to one planet. Earth is not 'a' planet, it is 'one' planet. It is therefore possible for life to exist native to this one particular planet because we exist. This does not mean it can be declared possible on any other planet, because we cannot rule out that it may not be possible on any other planet.

We prove that life can exist native to the particular planet Earth. Therefore, life can exist native to that particular planet. No further generalisation is possible, because other planets are not the one particular planet Earth.

We can't prove that there is life on any planet but our own, but we're not talking about that, well not yet anyway.

You are. You're trying to use Earth to generalise that life is possible on planets which are not Earth, because life is possible on Earth. This is, again, a hasty generalisation; you assume because one planet has a certain property, all planets must share that property. We have no proof of that, and significant evidence that life could not exist native to certain planets [Mercury, Pluto], so it is obviously invalid as a conclusion.

The difference between human life and alien life is purely semantics, and you have already stated you don't want to argue semantics.

No, the difference between human life and alien life is level of proof and origin. We haven't yet observed alien life, so we cannot say it is possible for it to exist.

because that foundations of science and your semantic nitpicking arguments have nothing to do with the contraversy of I.D. and creationisms. Whether they fit into scientific theory is not relavent. Science can neither prove or disprove the existance of an intelligent creator. What the left is pushing is a ban on discussion of intelligent design. The things that you are arguing about are deep and sem-thoughtful semantic discussions, but they have nothing to do with the ultimate issue at hand, and that is academic freedom.

Yes, like how it's so unfair that children can't learn that 1+1=7 in maths. Teaching children nonsensical unscientific 'theories' in science isn't any different.

Also, Barry, stop trying to derail the thread. You've been warned about this once already. Stop trolling, now.

No, you infer Gravity. That is, you claim, "it is likely that this concept, gravity, caused that apple to fall on my head". You need to tell me what you mean by "conclusive evidence".

Actually, that's not true. What you do is observe the apple was not moving when it was on the tree, but fell and when it hit your head, was moving and had a force that hurt a bit. Therefore, you have observed that a falling object gains speed from something and always moves downwards, and you call this something 'gravity.'

You have directly observed gravity.

The equivalent with a designer would be to watch the designer creating something without actually seeing the designer, because he's invisible or you can only see his hands. With gravity, you have seen the direct effects of the force.

With the supposed 'evidence' for ID, you have only seen the after-effects, the 'design' finished without the 'designer' ever being seen in action. If the evidence for gravity were the same, this would mean you would have seen apples either on the ground or on the tree, but never seen them fall.

String theory is very young is what it is. Although Arthais gave a good answer, I'd further point out that string theory is going to be tested hard over the next few decades, in practice as well as theory. For instance, LISA (a massive project to send three satellites into orbit around the sun, which will then link by lasers stretching 3 million miles!) will be able to detect even the tiniest of shifts in the spacing between it's three satellites (up to a tenth of an atom!). These tiny shifts will be analyzed in a measurable way, allowing physicists to understand (in theory) how a gravitational wave works, and depending upon those results could well prove string theory right (among many other things. For instance, among LISA's goals is the hope to understand what happened, quite literally, less than a second after the Big Bang occured, and even theoretically what happened before it occured. Grandious hopes indeed, but fascinating ones). Or there are particle colliders like the Large Hadron that will test what happens when two protons get destroyed in super-energized impact. If string theory is right for instance, super particles would at least momentarily exist after the impact, as the strings would vibrate significantly higher than normal (protons, neutrons, and electrons being results of the lowest energy frequency).

On a side note, the Large Hadron Collider might be the most fascinating thing ever built. Once it is put into action, it will literally be able to measure things we've never come close to before. We're talking energy being produced on the order of trillions of times the power of dynomite, all compressed into super small areas. Hell, some theorize the Large Hadron could produce two things somewhat unintentionally: 1) It may form super-tiny black holes (which would not be dangerous to the Earth), 2)It may create so much energy in it's collisions as to quite literally blow matter out of our dimension (string theory predicts 10 active dimensions). Quite cool stuff.

Yes, I get your point, many possibilities are on the horizon for the confirmation of S.T. My point is that at some point there weren't. However, String theory still had a place within Science. Yet, if science is only concerned with what is testable, then ST would never of been looked. Indeed, every major idea within science comes from a place which isn't testable. Since there has been so much resistance to ID, all I claim is that ID can at least be investigated that a stage that is further back than testability, to get evrything worked out. I argued this in a former thread on Cosmological physics and ID. I don't see why it couldn't be a model worth fleshing out and investigating, like any other model that is at an early stage within science -- like String theory once was.

Until someone can come up w/ a test for some such "designer", ID doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis.

round and round and round and round.


Fine, it is a potential hypothesis, with the potential to be tested. There has been so much irrational opposition to this idea, that it has never been taken up by anybody outside a humanities department. Everyone states, "science can't answer whether God exists or not". Why? How do you know this?

That is an empiricist stance. For example, when empiricists, and they still do, heard of String Theory they derided String Theory as metaphysics because there is no way to test it -- at least at the/this time. Some people are more psychologically brave than other people.

A hypothesis is worthless, you state. It's not worthless at all. It it is a coherent, rational statement about how some aspect of the world operates -- of course, it is supposed to be tested in some way. If that's worthless to you, then fine.
Just so. The hypothesis of string theory is mathematically valid.

No, you infer Gravity. That is, you claim, "it is likely that this concept, gravity, caused that apple to fall on my head". You need to tell me what you mean by "conclusive evidence".
Gravity is that concept. It is nothing more.

I swear to god, evey time I have jumped off an elevated platform, I have fallen *down*! I have observed gravity in action.

So what, you don't directly observe gravity, you observe its effects. Google it if you don't believe me -- I haven't, but I think it is obvious that you don't directly observe gravity.

I have also observed god at work, but admit that that is not scientific. I know the difference.

You have neither observed God at work nor gravity, you've observed the effects, or what you take them to be.

Our wants are irrelevant to science.

We cannot have a design without a designer. Irregardless of whether we "want a designer," there is no scientific evidence of one.

Our wants are irrelevant to science. Last year I lived with a guy who worked in a lab that was payed for by the American Diabetic Association. The wants of that asociation directed exactly where research in that lab went. Even business has a hand in mathematical research. Shit, some people argue that there is such a thing as pure science, and they're in the minority -- the wants of business and government drives science



It's a very good thing. God cannot be exempt from logic, for if it exists apart from our creation (as it does) it describes the universe objectively created (by him, if that is your belief).

This was just a left over part of your argument that got pasted over. God can't do the logically impossible, which is neither good nor bad, but just is.



A scientific assumption holds to things that are testable.

Surely you make an assumption at some point -- i.e. at the start of the creation of a hypothesis -- without knowing how it is going to be tested -- unless your God, of course. Look, there are many aspects to the scientific process, it isn't just, hypothesis, test hypothesis, retest hypothesis.

Yes, I get your point, many possibilities are on the horizon for the confirmation of S.T. My point is that at some point there weren't. However, String theory still had a place within Science. Yet, if science is only concerned with what is testable, then ST would never of been looked. Indeed, every major idea within science comes from a place which isn't testable.

It's a place called 'mathematics,' in String Theory's case. The only evidence for String Theory prior to physical data being gathered is mathematical proofs that it isn't theoretically impossible. There's a lot of science with similar proof, and where it goes is a place called fringe science, beloved of writers of things like Star Trek and The X-Files. Until it can be tested, it will never leave that place.

ID, on the other hand, can never even get to that place, because it is pseudoscience; in other words, an unscientific concept attempting to disguise itself as science. It is not that it can't be tested that's the problem; the problem is there is no way it can ever generate a valid testable hypothesis and no experiment can be devised that would disprove it, so it fails two of the fundamental tests of a valid scientific theory.

Just so. The hypothesis of string theory is mathematically valid.


There are many weird things that are mathematically valid, including holograpm theory -- that the universe is a hologram. So what.

Yes, I get your point, many possibilities are on the horizon for the confirmation of S.T. My point is that at some point there weren't. However, String theory still had a place within Science. Yet, if science is only concerned with what is testable, then ST would never of been looked. Indeed, every major idea within science comes from a place which isn't testable. Since there has been so much resistance to ID, all I claim is that ID can at least be investigated that a stage that is further back than testability, to get evrything worked out. I argued this in a former thread on Cosmological physics and ID. I don't see why it couldn't be a model worth fleshing out and investigating, like any other model that is at an early stage within science -- like String theory once was.
The bolded statement is an absurdity. Plenty of theories in science, including gravity, are testable. That some mathematical theories are not yet testable does not reflect on all theories.

There are many weird things that are mathematically valid, including holograpm theory -- that the universe is a hologram. So what.

That 'theory' fails logical parsimony. Much like the 'theory' that I am asleep and the universe does not really exist outside my mind [solipsism], it dictates a premise that can never be tested and adds nothing to the predictive ability of the theory. The term is useless, and would be discarded; this is why neither solipsism nor 'hologram theory' are given any credence in science.

Also, how is a theory with a totally unknown and unknowable premise 'mathematically valid?' Can you show us the equation?

ID, on the other hand, can never even get to that place, because it is pseudoscience; in other words, an unscientific concept attempting to disguise itself as science. It is not that it can't be tested that's the problem; the problem is there is no way it can ever generate a valid testable hypothesis and no experiment can be devised that would disprove it, so it fails two of the fundamental tests of a valid scientific theory.

Thanks for the definition of pseudoscience. However, perhaps you can lay out what a pseudoscience does -- get it from a peer reviewed site -- and then compare that ID.

I'm confused as you say "It's not the case that it can't be tested...the problem is there is no way it can ever generate a valid testable hypothesis and no experiment can be devised that would disprove it". OK, don't you need a "valid (whatever that means)" and testable hypothesis. You're saying it can and can't be tested, which is a contradiction. Please clarify.

The bolded statement is an absurdity. Plenty of theories in science, including gravity, are testable. That some mathematical theories are not yet testable does not reflect on all theories.

NO, I'm not saying that, a testable idea starts somewhere in which testability or how to test for the idea may not have been concieved of yet -- indeed, the testability aspect may take years before it is feasible. However, it is still part of science, right? How do you know that ID isn't the same way?

That 'theory' fails logical parsimony. Much like the 'theory' that I am asleep and the universe does not really exist outside my mind [solipsism], it dictates a premise that can never be tested and adds nothing to the predictive ability of the theory. The term is useless, and would be discarded; this is why neither solipsism nor 'hologram theory' are given any credence in science.

Also, how is a theory with a totally unknown and unknowable premise 'mathematically valid?' Can you show us the equation?

Yes, but you stated that the Mathematics was sound with String Theory and I said, well other systems have this quality too. So, what are you saying against ID?
I didn't say it was mathematically valid. My point is that the math aspect isn't so important.

So what, you don't directly observe gravity, you observe its effects. Google it if you don't believe me -- I haven't, but I think it is obvious that you don't directly observe gravity.
The theory of gravity states that when I jump off something I'll move towards the thing of greatest mass. I find that it's true! I don't have to google it if it's true... the Internet isn't the only source of irreputable, unquestionable truth, you know.

You have neither observed God at work nor gravity, you've observed the effects, or what you take them to be.
I have observed the interpretive effect of god. I defy you to prove your positive assertion otherwise.

Our wants are irrelevant to science. Last year I lived with a guy who worked in a lab that was payed for by the American Diabetic Association. The wants of that asociation directed exactly where research in that lab went. Even business has a hand in mathematical research. Shit, some people argue that there is such a thing as pure science, and they're in the minority -- the wants of business and government drives science.
Need I point out that the wants of that association (or any business or government) are not the wants of science?

This was just a left over part of your argument that got past[a]ed over. God can't do the logically impossible, which is neither good nor bad, but just is.
Well, I think it's good.

Surely you make an assumption at some point -- i.e. at the start of the creation of a hypothesis -- without knowing how it is going to be tested -- unless your God, of course. Look, there are many aspects to the scientific process, it isn't just, hypothesis, test hypothesis, retest hypothesis.
A scientific hypothesis (http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0484383.html) is a statement that purports to explain something, and so makes a statement that is true, therefore testable.

Fine, it is a potential hypothesis, with the potential to be tested. There has been so much irrational opposition to this idea, that it has never been taken up by anybody outside a humanities department. Everyone states, "science can't answer whether God exists or not". Why? How do you know this?

There are some Gods that can be tested for, actually, given some of them are predicted to exist in certain places on Earth; obviously, those can be disproven by locating those places and demonstrating they aren't there.

YHWH [aka 'the designer'] is much more problematic. YHWH has the properties of being omnipotent [he can do anything], omniscient [he knows everything] and mysterious [he reveals only what he pleases to whoever he pleases, without apparent pattern].

You cannot generate a test that would disprove the existence of an omnipotent God; because since there is nothing he cannot do, there is nothing you can show that he cannot have done. This means anything can be explained by such a God's presence, but at the same time, nothing can be predicted of him, because he is mysterious.

And this is why mysterious Gods with ill-defined properties aren't allowed as assumptions in science; they just remove all predictability from the hypothesis and make it useless.

OK, don't you need a "valid (whatever that means)" and testable hypothesis. You're saying it can and can't be tested, which is a contradiction. Please clarify.

The problem is it fails two tests: firstly, ID's designer is unobservable and mysterious. We know of nothing ID's creator cannot do according to the 'theory,' therefore we cannot falsify the 'theory' because any piece of evidence could be incorporated; that's just what the designer decided to do.

We cannot generate a test for this 'theory' because we know of no properties of the central mechanism, the designer; we therefore cannot say 'in case A, we would expect the designer to do X' and then examine case A to see if that has happened. The two are closely linked; you can't create an experiment to test something if there is no possible failure condition for that test, and you can't define an experiment if the mechanism of your 'theory' is a mysterious unknown.

ID can only ever go on what we have already seen; because the designer will go on doing whatever it feels like, we can never say what it will do under any given conditions. That is why ID will never be science. One of the best descriptions of ID I've ever heard is:

'The completely scientific, non-religious theory that a mysterious unnamed deity magically created all life.'

I'm going for a well deserved drink. I'll check back later. I'll say this, though. I'm not asking for ID to become part of a biology class or anything. However, I think that world's most accurate intellectual tool vis-a-vis the world, i.e. the scientific method, should be used to attempt to answer the question whether a designer created the universe. The answer is irrelevant to me whether a designer created the universe is irrelevant to me. I don't understand why this idea could not be investigated by some cosmological physicist .

NO, I'm not saying that, a testable idea starts somewhere in which testability or how to test for the idea may not have been concieved of yet -- indeed, the testability aspect may take years before it is feasible. However, it is still part of science, right? How do you know that ID isn't the same way?
Well, for one thing, ID includes the idea of an untestable thing.

I'm going for a well deserved drink. I'll check back later. I'll say this, though. I'm not asking for ID to become part of a biology class or anything. However, I think that world's most accurate intellectual tool vis-a-vis the world, i.e. the scientific method, should be used to attempt to answer the question whether a designer created the universe. The answer is irrelevant to me whether a designer created the universe is irrelevant to me. I don't understand why this idea could not be investigated by some cosmological physicist .
It cannot, and attempting to prove "design" is not the way.

Yes, I get your point, many possibilities are on the horizon for the confirmation of S.T. My point is that at some point there weren't. However, String theory still had a place within Science. Yet, if science is only concerned with what is testable, then ST would never of been looked.

Around and around and around we go.

Here, in brief, is the idea of string theory.

Someone went "oh, I have an idea!". Then he went "gee, how can I test that idea? It's too small to see, so I can't test it with my senses. But what I can do is create a mathematical model for a universe that operates under string theory, and compare that to a mathematical model of the universe as I know it."

Then when we do that we can go "well, gee, look at that, they ARE compatable, let's have some other people take a look at this and see if my math is right."

Once that math is verifiable, then we can call it a theory.

All ID has been able to do so far is say "I have an idea", and nobody, NOBODY has presented a good place to go from that.


Indeed, every major idea within science comes from a place which isn't testable. Since there has been so much resistance to ID, all I claim is that ID can at least be investigated that a stage that is further back than testability, to get evrything worked out. I argued this in a former thread on Cosmological physics and ID. I don't see why it couldn't be a model worth fleshing out and investigating, like any other model that is at an early stage within science -- like String theory once was.

If you have a place to go from here, if you have some test that will verify a creator then by ALL MEANS, go test it. However NOBODY has, NOBODY has conceived of where to go NOW. In short THERE IS NO TEST. It has not been conceived of. And UNTIL IT IS, then it's not a scientific theory,and until SOMEONE comes up with some form of TEST, it's useless to science.

Sciences cares only about what is testable, and until someone comes up with a way to TEST it, ID is worthless to science.

Then you appear to agree with Dem. So why are you disputing her?


Are you serious???

I've plainly stated several times my disagreement with Dem, and for the record (not that it matters for anything), Dem was disputing me, not the other way around.

If you can't see where Dem and I disagree then please go pester her and ask why she was disputing me, perhaps she'll have better luck explaining where we disagree.

I'm going for a well deserved drink. I'll check back later. I'll say this, though. I'm not asking for ID to become part of a biology class or anything. However, I think that world's most accurate intellectual tool vis-a-vis the world, i.e. the scientific method, should be used to attempt to answer the question whether a designer created the universe. The answer is irrelevant to me whether a designer created the universe is irrelevant to me. I don't understand why this idea could not be investigated by some cosmological physicist .The moment we find a designer capable of such a feat, we can start trying to formulate hypotheses about whether the universe is designed or not. Until we find a capable designer, there's nothing to test.

Until we find a capable designer, there's nothing to test.
Except our patience.

That isn't the issue. The issue is you cannot show me a designer which doesn't have the quality human. Therefore, it's not valid to assume a designer can exist without that quality without first having valid evidence that the new quality and 'designer' are compatible. We can't just use generalisations and word game to 'prove' it.


Trying to limit the word does not change the reality that designers exist. We could write a small essay on the qualities we observe that designers seem to have in common, human being one.

I could also say, lawyers exist.
Sure, you could tell me again that all lawyers we know of are human.
That doesn't change the fact that lawyers exist.


No, there are certain concrete things that have that quality. We can't assume other things do just because some things do, that's nonsense.


But we're not assuming other concrete things do exist.


Wrong. Alien life is native to other planets and not our own. Therefore, we are not proof that alien life can exist, as we are not life native to other planets and not our own.


There's no reason to even use the word alien, other than your absolute refusal to find any common ground to agree upon.


Native to one planet. Earth is not 'a' planet, it is 'one' planet.

Now the semantics are just getting silly.
Of course Earth is a planet.

You are. You're trying to use Earth to generalise that life is possible on planets which are not Earth, because life is possible on Earth. This is, again, a hasty generalisation; you assume because one planet has a certain property, all planets must share that property. We have no proof of that, and significant evidence that life could not exist native to certain planets [Mercury, Pluto], so it is obviously invalid as a conclusion.


Nonsense.
Until we investigate, it is possible. You're simply providing evidence for why it is less possible and perhaps impossible on specific planets now.
It is possible that any human is a genius.
Knowing more about a specific human will change that possibility.


No, the difference between human life and alien life is level of proof and origin. We haven't yet observed alien life, so we cannot say it is possible for it to exist.



If we observe alien life, we would NOT say alien life is possible.
We would say alien life exists, the possibility would be over with.

You seem to mix up those 2 concepts regularly

Are you serious???

I've plainly stated several times my disagreement with Dem, and for the record (not that it matters for anything), Dem was disputing me, not the other way around.

If you can't see where Dem and I disagree then please go pester her and ask why she was disputing me, perhaps she'll have better luck explaining where we disagree.
If you're not willing to address my concerns, fine.

Trying to limit the word does not change the reality that designers exist. We could write a small essay on the qualities we observe that designers seem to have in common, human being one.

Human just happening to be common to all observed designers. Designers neither exist nor have been observed. Humans with the quality 'designer' exist. No other known designers exist, therefore it is not valid to theorise a designer which is not human can exist before observing such a thing.

There is no such thing as a 'designer' on its own. A designer is just someone who designs things; without the someone, there is no designing of things, therefore there cannot be just 'designer' without someone to be the designer. So far, that someone has to be human, so if we wish to presuppose that someone need not be human, we must find another someone who can design things.

I could also say, lawyers exist.
Sure, you could tell me again that all lawyers we know of are human.
That doesn't change the fact that lawyers exist.

Lawyers don't exist. Humans who are lawyers exist. This is a ridiculous as saying 'purple' exists. 'Lawyer' and 'purple' are abstract concepts: they don't exist outside of things that have those qualities. Again, this is reification: 'designer' is not something that exists, it is something humans can be. We're not aware of it being something anything else can be, and so can't assume it.

But we're not assuming other concrete things do exist.

Like what? Aliens aren't concrete things because they're not known to be able to exist, and designer is a quality or a job description, not a concrete thing. Again, purple exists without being a concrete thing; it is a property of other things and does not exist alone. Paint can be purple. Cars can be purple. Houses can be purple. However, something can't just be purple with no other qualities.

'Designer' also cannot exist without having other qualities. It is not a concrete thing, it's a property some concrete things are capable of having.

There's no reason to even use the word alien, other than your absolute refusal to find any common ground to agree upon.

And because of what that word means, which you're trying to twist now.

Now the semantics are just getting silly.
Of course Earth is a planet.

Yes, but you're twisting what that means, which means we can't call it 'a' planet in your argument because it allows a meaningless generalisation. You want Earth to be 'a' planet as in 'a typical example of a planet' because it's the only way your argument works. But Earth isn't 'a' planet that way, because all planets are different and so far the 'typical' planets we've found are gas giants like Jupiter.

There is as yet no reason to suppose another planet like Earth exists. There is certainly no reason to suppose another planet can share a property with Earth that we have not observed it having, like having life.

For purposes of your generalisation, Earth must be called 'one' planet to stop you abusing that 'a' can mean things other than 'one.' The fact that Earth has life proves nothing whatsoever about the ability of other planets to have native life, because those planets are not Earth.

You have done this:

Earth is a ['one'] planet
Life exists on Earth
[Hidden term: 'all planets are like Earth in this way']
Therefore life can exist on a ['any'] planet.

One planet can't prove any planet can support life; you need to shove in a hidden term to make that work. I'm utterly amazed you're trying to defend this hideous argument, given it concludes with a hasty generalisation and commits a fallacy of equivocation by using two different meanings of 'a.' Look at what else you can do with the same sort of argument:

I am a human
A human can fly a fighter jet
Therefore, I can fly this fighter jet

Adolf Hitler was a human
A human can be President of the United States
Therefore, Adolf Hitler was President of the United States

Kittens are animals
An animal can grow to weigh one hundred and forty tons
Therefore, this kitten can grow to weigh one hundred and forty tons.

Dogs are animals
Dogs have fur
Therefore, all animals have fur

It's rubbish.

Nonsense.

I'm glad you agree.

Until we investigate, it is possible. You're simply providing evidence for why it is less possible and perhaps impossible on specific planets now.

No, until we investigate we do not know if it's possible or not possible. It may not be possible at all, anywhere; Earth could be the sole planet able to support life in the universe. Until we have proven it is not, we cannot assume it is not.

Again, is magic 'possible' before you investigate it? Are invisible pink unicorns? No, they may be possible until further evidence is gathered regarding whether they are either possible or not possible. We do not assume a positive condition for everything by default.

It is possible that any human is a genius.

False. It is impossible that the many observed humans who are not geniuses are geniuses. Therefore, it may be possible a given human is a genius. You've tried restating this argument a dozen ways, but it never stops being wrong. If known cases exist where something is not possible, we cannot say it is possible in all cases. We know it's not possible in some cases, so we revert to that it may be possible to allow that it may also not be possible.

If we observe alien life, we would NOT say alien life is possible.
We would say alien life exists, the possibility would be over with.

False. We would conclude it is possible to have life on other planets, because possible means 'it can happen' and we know it can happen now. Until then, we must conclude that it may be possible pending evidence in either direction.

You seem to mix up those 2 concepts regularly

That would be you. You don't seem to realise the word 'possible' excludes 'impossible;' if you say something is possible, you categorically exclude the idea that it is not possible. You can't do that without proof of the thing being possible no matter how much you want to.

I suggest you read and take the time to understand this before continuing:

http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

...and?

Umm... the 'undesigned' objects didn't have a designer beyond an automated algorithm? :confused:

Umm... the 'undesigned' objects didn't have a designer beyond an automated algorithm? :confused:
But surely someone designed the algorithm?

If you're not willing to address my concerns, fine.


If you have a concern, state it. But all you're asking is why I don't agree with Dem, and I explained that already.

Human just happening to be common to all observed designers.

Sure.


Human just happening to be common to all observed designers. Designers neither exist nor have been observed. Humans with the quality 'designer' exist. No other known designers exist, therefore it is not valid to theorise a designer which is not human can exist before observing such a thing.

There is no such thing as a 'designer' on its own. A designer is just someone who designs things; without the someone, there is no designing of things, therefore there cannot be just 'designer' without someone to be the designer. So far, that someone has to be human, so if we wish to presuppose that someone need not be human, we must find another someone who can design things.


I can theorise it. I just can't prove it to be true yet.
You're not asking me to prove it is possible, you're asking me to prove that it is true.
That's an entirely different thing.

If I need to observe it first, then we are not dealing with possibilities, we are dealing with true or not true.


And because of what that word means, which you're trying to twist now.


I'm not trying to twist it, I want to excise it entirely because it is useless for the purpose of our discussion.


Like what?

I think you misread me, your question does not follow.


Yes, but you're twisting what that means, which means we can't call it 'a' planet in your argument because it allows a meaningless generalisation. You want Earth to be 'a' planet as in 'a typical example of a planet' because it's the only way your argument works. But Earth isn't 'a' planet that way, because all planets are different and so far the 'typical' planets we've found are gas giants like Jupiter.

There is as yet no reason to suppose another planet like Earth exists. There is certainly no reason to suppose another planet can share a property with Earth that we have not observed it having, like having life.

For purposes of your generalisation, Earth must be called 'one' planet to stop you abusing that 'a' can mean things other than 'one.' The fact that Earth has life proves nothing whatsoever about the ability of other planets to have native life, because those planets are not Earth.



Sorry, but I'm not the one twisting anything.
Earth is a planet.
That's pretty simple stuff right there.
I made no claim to all planets being earth-clones or any such nonsense.
Your insistence that Earth is NOT 'a' planet is ludicrous and your insistence that we call it 'one' planet only serves to further your implied re-defining Earth as not 'a' planet, but rather 'the' life supporting orb of the universe.

If you want to start in with observations on life and planets, you could begin to narrow it down and say that we can safely assume that life does not appear on gas giants, nor on planets less than X metres from it's sun nor more than Y metres from it's sun because planets with those conditions are too harsh for any life we can conceive of.
This entire process recognises though that since we are life on 'a' planet, it is possible that other planets could have life.
There is nothing in that possibility that insists the every planet is capable of supporting life.


You have done this:

Earth is a ['one'] planet
Life exists on Earth
[Hidden term: 'all planets are like Earth in this way']
Therefore life can exist on a ['any'] planet.


The hidden term is not there, and I'm not making that therefore statement.


One planet can't prove any planet can support life; you need to shove in a hidden term to make that work. I'm utterly amazed you're trying to defend this hideous argument, given it concludes with a hasty generalisation and commits a fallacy of equivocation by using two different meanings of 'a.'

I'm utterly amazed that you typed out that hideous argument, because I'm not making it.

Mine would look more like this

Earth is an example of a planet.
Life exists on Earth.
There, it is possible for life to exist on planets.


Look at what else you can do with the same sort of argument:

I am a human
A human can fly a fighter jet
Therefore, I can fly this fighter jet


I am a human.
Jet fighters are flown by humans
Therefore, it is possible that I will be able to fly a Jet Fighter.


Adolf Hitler was a human
A human can be President of the United States
Therefore, Adolf Hitler was President of the United States


Adolf Hitler was a human.
A human can be President of the United States.
Therefore, if I know nothing else about the life of Hitler, nor the history or the United States, nor any other requirement for being President of the United States, it is POSSIBLE that Hitler was President of the United States.


Kittens are animals
An animal can grow to weigh one hundred and forty tons
Therefore, this kitten can grow to weigh one hundred and forty tons.


Snipes are animals.
An animal can grow to one hundred and forty tons.
Therefore, this snipe could possibly grow to weigh one hundred and forty tons.


Dogs are animals
Dogs have fur
Therefore, all animals have fur

Dogs are animals.
Dogs have fur.
It is possible for animals to have fur.


It's rubbish.


Quite true, every example you showed was rubbish. You won't see me disagree.
It's a good thing for my position that none of your examples are anything that I'm arguing.


That would be you. You don't seem to realise the word 'possible' excludes 'impossible;' if you say something is possible, you categorically exclude the idea that it is [i]not possible. You can't do that without proof of the thing being possible no matter how much you want to.


You're not asking for proof that the thing is possible, you're asking for proof that it is true.
When we say that something is possible, that includes both the cases that it might be true and it might be not true.

When I say that life is possible on a planet, that will include Earth, where it is true and Jupiter where it is not true.

Oh, and please drop the magic example, there's a reason I've never responded... we have NEVER observed magic, we have observed life. You cannot equate the 2.

I can theorise it. I just can't prove it to be true yet.
You're not asking me to prove it is possible, you're asking me to prove that it is true.
That's an entirely different thing.

Possible is the opposite of 'impossible.' When something is possible, it means it is capable of happening. If we have no reason to believe something is capable of happening, we cannot call it possible.

If I need to observe it first, then we are not dealing with possibilities, we are dealing with true or not true.

If you want to assume something is possible ['capable of happening'] you must first show it is indeed capable of happening. Until then, you are stuck in the limbo of 'we do not know if it is possible or impossible,' which shortens to 'may be possible.'

We need to observe something before we can judge it capable of happening. We cannot assume it capable of happening until then, so we cannot describe it as 'possible' until then either.

Also, given all assumptions of a theory must be proven true before they can be used [that's one of the things in that guide I suggested you read, remember?], how in the world does this help you? If possible doesn't have a similar meaning to 'true' [which it does, it means 'capable of being true'], that just means your assumption is invalid and your designers are worthless until, as I initially said, you get hard proof rather than a circular argument.

I'm not trying to twist it, I want to excise it entirely because it is useless for the purpose of our discussion.

No, you want to change it to 'life' because you think that then you can abuse multiple meanings of 'a planet' to make 'life' possible on all planets because it's possible on one. You think this will then allow you to assume aliens without proof, in spite of that fact your definition of 'possible' only means 'not demonstrated to be impossible' and is exactly the same as my 'may be possible.'

The fact that life native to other planets has not been demonstrated to be impossible is not reason to assume it; you must demonstrate is not impossible to do that. Oddly, 'not impossible' is a state called 'possible,' hence my objection to your use of it to mean 'not demonstrated to be impossible.'

I think you misread me, your question does not follow.

What 'concrete things' are we assuming do not exist?

Sorry, but I'm not the one twisting anything.
Earth is a planet.
That's pretty simple stuff right there.

Yes, with 'a' meaning 'one.' Jupiter is also 'a' planet, but shares virtually no other characteristics with Earth. Just being part of a particular set of things with a given name doesn't mean all those things share whatever properties you want them too. A tiny canvas coracle and a 48,000 ton Typhoon class ballistic missile submarine are both called 'a boat,' does that mean they share other qualities too? Does that mean

A canvas coracle is an example of a boat.
A canvas coracle is operated by only one man.
There, it is possible for only one man to operate a boat.

Is valid? Think carefully, the Typhoon class are boats and they each have a crew of one hundred and sixty-three.

I made no claim to all planets being earth-clones or any such nonsense.
Your insistence that Earth is NOT 'a' planet is ludicrous and your insistence that we call it 'one' planet only serves to further your implied re-defining Earth as not 'a' planet, but rather 'the' life supporting orb of the universe.

Which, to our current knowledge, it is. When we have any knowledge of alien life being possible, we will re-evaluate that. Until then, we cannot assume that a particular thing called a planet that appears to be unique among observed things called planets is not unique just because there are other things called planets.

You objection makes no sense at all; Earth is the only known planet with native life, and should be defined as such until this is shown to not be the case. Earth is 'a' planet, meaning 'one' planet in this context. The fact that this annihilates your argument is a problem with your argument.

This entire process recognises though that since we are life on 'a' planet, it is possible that other planets could have life.

False. On many planets it is not possible to have native life, it is impossible, because of the observed fact that they don't have native life. This means we cannot generalise that 'native life is possible on all planets,' because this can easily be shown to be untrue.

There is nothing in that possibility that insists the every planet is capable of supporting life.

It insists it is 'possible' even where it is known to not be possible. That is the exact same thing.

The hidden term is not there, and I'm not making that therefore statement.

You are. You have assumed all things called planets must share a given property with any particular thing called a planet. You have no basis for this claim, given that we have no proof the Earth is not unique until we discover a world with life on it.

Disproving the uniqueness of the Earth would be easily done with a few bacteria cultures, soil samples, fossils or other concrete, testable and verifiable data. It is not able to be done by screwing around with the meaning of words to generalise that all planets are able to have native life just because one does, in spite of the fact that of the many observed planets all but that one do not have native life.

I'm utterly amazed that you typed out that hideous argument, because I'm not making it.

Really? You're about to type it back out all but verbatim, so how did you work that out?

Mine would look more like this

Earth is an example of a planet.
Life exists on Earth.
There, it is possible for life to exist on planets.

But Earth is not an 'example' of a planet, that assumes all planets share qualities with Earth, as I said. It's rather difficult to debate when you keep agreeing with me and refusing to acknowledge it. Earth is also not 'planets.' Earth proves it is possible for exactly one planet to support life, that planet being Earth, because it does. The only way you can get 'planets' in there is if you had two examples of planets that support native life; those two planets would then prove it is possible for two planets to support native life, and so on.

Let's run this with a different example:

Mercury is an example of a planet
Life does not exist on Mercury
Therefore, it is not possible for life to exist on planets

Well, your amazingly valid and not at all logically disastrous argument just disproved there can ever be any life in the universe there, so let's go back to the problem here again.

The real argument here is:

[1] Things exist called planets
[2] One thing called a planet is called Earth
[3] This particular thing called a planet has a property called native life
[4] Therefore, because one particular thing called a planet with a property called native life can exist, all other things called planets are able to have a property called native life.

Utter garbage. One planet cannot prove anything about every other planet in the universe. Here's the valid form:

[1] Things exist called planets
[2] One thing called a planet is called Earth
[3] This particular thing called a planet has a property called native life
[4] Therefore, native life exists on this particular thing called a planet

That's it. You can conclude things about Earth by observing Earth, but you can't conclude things about properties of other planets by observing Earth because they are not Earth.

I am a human.
Jet fighters are flown by humans
Therefore, it is possible that I will be able to fly a Jet Fighter.

Wrong. You claimed one planet proved life is possible on all planets even when it is not possible on some examples of planets, and an equal claim would be that because some humans can fly jet fighters, all humans can fly jet fighters, even those who can't.

Adolf Hitler was a human.
A human can be President of the United States.
Therefore, if I know nothing else about the life of Hitler, nor the history or the United States, nor any other requirement for being President of the United States, it is POSSIBLE that Hitler was President of the United States.

No, it is not possible that Hitler was President of the United States, because Adolf Hitler was not President of the United States. This is a probability zero scenario. Nor was it possible just because you didn't know it wasn't. Reality doesn't care what you know when it's deciding if things happen or not.

Snipes are animals.
An animal can grow to one hundred and forty tons.
Therefore, this snipe could possibly grow to weigh one hundred and forty tons.

The example was kittens. Can kittens ever grow to weigh one hundred and forty tons? Of course not, it's impossible. Simply sharing a gross category like 'animal' doesn't mean they share properties with Blue Whales just because Blue Whales are also animals.

Dogs are animals.
Dogs have fur.
It is possible for animals to have fur.

But it isn't possible for all animals to have fur, is it? There's many animals for which it is in fact impossible. I don't see why you think re-wording the example will change how wrong it is.

Quite true, every example you showed was rubbish. You won't see me disagree.

Every example I showed used the same ridiculous generalisation as you. I don't see why you think 'possible' [meaning 'capable of happening'] changes that, given that all of them include statements which are not capable of happening.

It's a good thing for my position that none of your examples are anything that I'm arguing.

Actually, they are. You are arguing that if a particular thing has a certain quality, all things of the same type must share that quality. Therefore, all 'planets' must share the properties of 'a planet.'

This is as nonsensical as the idea that all 'animals' must share the qualities of 'an animal' or that if 'a human' can do something any human can do that thing.

You're not asking for proof that the thing is possible, you're asking for proof that it is true.
When we say that something is possible, that includes both the cases that it might be true and it might be not true.

False. When we say something is possible, we rule out that it may be impossible by default. Possible is the opposite of impossible, and excludes it. 'May be possible' is the term that doesn't exclude 'impossible,' and you have so far constantly resisted any attempt to use it. Why? Because you need the actual meaning of 'possible' to declare aliens a valid assumption, because they can't be a valid premise and still have the capability to be impossible, can they?

A premise must be true. To be true, it must be shown to not be impossible. Once it is clearly shown to not be impossible, it can be declared to be possible. Before that, we do not declare either state, therefore we cannot legitimately use 'possible' to describe an unobserved thing, since that can mean 'not impossible' and we haven't shown that.

To be honest, your endless nitpicking over this is showing how weak your position is: you claim possible means 'may be possible or impossible,' but when an alternate, clearer wording ['may be possible'] is given instead, you resist it. Why? If the two terms are being suggested to have the same meaning [as you claim], it shouldn't matter which is used in your argument. For example, if I have a term in an argument saying something is small, it shouldn't matter if I say it's tiny, titchy, wee, tiddly, Lilliputian, small, minuscule, minute or any other word meaning the same thing. Any way it's done, the truth of the argument isn't affected by the choice of words.

The fact that it very obviously does matter which is used in your argument shows a serious lack of validity to your argument. If your argument is destroyed by the use of a term which explicitly includes the idea that an item may be impossible even when you claim the original term does that too, it cannot be valid. And yours does exactly that.

One of your premises ['intelligent alien designers'] is not known to be possible or impossible. It is worthless until this is determined. You claim 'possible' includes the ability to be 'impossible,' therefore you agree to this. You therefore agree your theory about alien designers is absolutely worthless until we can determine that the premise that alien designers can exist is 'true.'

We cannot do this by assuming the objects we see are designed, because we cannot make a true assumption that a designer existed for the objects, and identifying something as 'designed' assumes a designer must exist. You're stuck; without identifying a 'designer' as a true assumption, you cannot assume a designer, therefore nothing can be the result of a designer, therefore you cannot assume design.

Your argument is basically:

If there were a designer I would see things that appeared to be designed
I see things that appear to be designed
Therefore there is a designer.

This is a logical fallacy called affirmation of the consequent; 'A implies B, B is true, therefore A is true' is not valid. Watch:

If someone is human (A), then they are mortal (B).
Anna is mortal (B).
Therefore Anna is human (A).

This would work, except for the tiny problem that Anna is a cat. It doesn't follow that the first premise is true just because the second is.

When I say that life is possible on a planet, that will include Earth, where it is true and Jupiter where it is not true.

In other words, you will include planets where your claim that life is possible is false even in a generalisation which you claim is true? Wondrous.

Oh, and please drop the magic example, there's a reason I've never responded... we have NEVER observed magic, we have observed life. You cannot equate the 2.

We have also never observed aliens. 'Life native to this planet' is not the same thing as 'life native to another planet,' and we require separate proof of the latter. Your attempt to generalise is showing yet again; since 'life' is only currently known on Earth, it tells us nothing about the probability of 'life' existing anywhere else. You can spend as long as you like complaining that the Earth can't be unique, but until we show it isn't unique, we can't just assume it because we prefer to think that way.

Seriously, if you walked into a house and saw someone had a porcelain owl on the mantelpiece, would you assume that proved all houses can have porcelain owls on the mantelpiece even though many houses do not have a mantelpiece? If this was the first time you had seen one, you wouldn't even be able to say for sure if there could be other porcelain owls or other mantelpieces, so it would be absolutely ludicrous to assume on the basis of this one house that it was possible ['capable of happening'] in all houses.

We have never observed life native to another planet. We have never observed magic. Until one is observed, both have the same level of evidence, that being 'none credible.' Both have claimed, unverifiable evidence, such as UFO sightings and psychics.

All dogs have a bark
So do all trees
Therefore all dogs are trees

Mercury is an example of a planet
Life does not exist on Mercury
Therefore, it is not possible for life to exist on planets

Correction:

Mercury is an example of a planet
Life does not occur on Mercury
Therefore, it is possible for life to not occur on planets

Possible is the opposite of 'impossible.' When something is possible, it means it is capable of happening. If we have no reason to believe something is capable of happening, we cannot call it possible.

If you want to assume something is possible ['capable of happening'] you must first show it is indeed capable of happening. Until then, you are stuck in the limbo of 'we do not know if it is possible or impossible,' which shortens to 'may be possible.'

We need to observe something before we can judge it capable of happening. We cannot assume it capable of happening until then, so we cannot describe it as 'possible' until then either.

If we have observed something happening, then we are not trying to say it is possible, we are saying it is true.

In your definitions, you are never allowing for ‘possible’, you only have impossible, ‘may be possible’ and true. You have simply redefined ‘possible’ to ‘may be possible’ for yourself to argue against my position.

If you believe I have your position wrong, then I would like to know under what conditions you will agree that something is ‘possible’ that we can’t also, or better describe as ‘true’, because each time you talk about ‘possible’ you keep demanding evidence that would prove it ‘true’ not possible.



Also, given all assumptions of a theory must be proven true before they can be used [that's one of the things in that guide I suggested you read, remember?], how in the world does this help you? If possible doesn't have a similar meaning to 'true' [which it does, it means 'capable of being true'], that just means your assumption is invalid and your designers are worthless until, as I initially said, you get hard proof rather than a circular argument.


How do you get similar out of “capable of being true” and true?

The assumption being made is that something is ‘possible’. It’s a valid assumption. I don’t need to prove the something to be true if all we are assuming is the something is possible.


No, you want to change it to 'life' because you think that then you can abuse multiple meanings of 'a planet' to make 'life' possible on all planets because it's possible on one.


I want to change it to life, because that is the most accurate term for what we are discussing.


What 'concrete things' are we assuming do not exist?


Are we doing a comedy routine or something now? That’s still not what I said.


Yes, with 'a' meaning 'one.' Jupiter is also 'a' planet, but shares virtually no other characteristics with Earth. Just being part of a particular set of things with a given name doesn't mean all those things share whatever properties you want them too. A tiny canvas coracle and a 48,000 ton Typhoon class ballistic missile submarine are both called 'a boat,' does that mean they share other qualities too?

There are 2 ways to answer you.
For the first answer, let’s assume that you are using an honest example and that both objects are called boats under the same definition of the term

Yes, they share all the qualities of a ‘boat’.

For the second way to answer you, I need to be aware that boat has more than one definition. Since Earth and Jupiter are planets under the same definition, albeit they are different types of planets, your example is not fair.

One definition of a boat includes small vessels that might be carried on a ship, one definition of a boat includes all inland vessels, regardless of size and one includes subs and ships.

Since for both planet and life, you are arguing for a sub-section of both (human life and alien life, planet Earth and not planet Earth or maybe Gas Giant planet, hard to tell what subsection you want to use there), not a different definition, your example falls flat.

Does that mean

A canvas coracle is an example of a boat.
A canvas coracle is operated by only one man.
There, it is possible for only one man to operate a boat.

Is valid? Think carefully, the Typhoon class are boats and they each have a crew of one hundred and sixty-three.


Yes, it is valid.
It is possible for only one man to operate a boat. I do it all the time.

If you want to further define the boat in question (as perhaps a Typhoon class), we can give a more specific answer.


Which, to our current knowledge, it is. When we have any knowledge of alien life being possible, we will re-evaluate that. Until then, we cannot assume that a particular thing called a planet that appears to be unique among observed things called planets is not unique just because there are other things called planets.

You objection makes no sense at all; Earth is the only known planet with native life, and should be defined as such until this is shown to not be the case. Earth is 'a' planet, meaning 'one' planet in this context. The fact that this annihilates your argument is a problem with your argument.


Earth is the only KNOWN planet with native life.
That is NOT equivalent to:
Earth is the only POSSIBLE planet with life.

You consistently equate KNOWN with POSSIBLE throughout our exchange.


False. On many planets it is not possible to have native life, it is impossible, because of the observed fact that they don't have native life. This means we cannot generalise that 'native life is possible on all planets,' because this can easily be shown to be untrue.


You only know that, because you have made the observations and drawn that conclusion. We are no longer dealing with what is possible, but are dealing with what is True or Not True in that case.

You keep wanting to stick the ‘all’ word in there before planets because it makes it look as though I’m actually saying there is life on all planets when we can observe that is not true. We can also observe that I’m not saying that.

If you find that the statement that life is possible on planets is too broad for your taste, we can begin to make observations and narrow it down to a subset of all planets that we can make a case for. We can exclude the types of planets for which our current knowledge tells us it is impossible for native life; Gas Giants, planets too hot or too cold etc. but you will still be left with the valid assumption that native life is possible on X subset of planets.
That’s possible, NOT known.


You are. You have assumed all things called planets must share a given property with any particular thing called a planet. You have no basis for this claim, given that we have no proof the Earth is not unique until we discover a world with life on it.

Disproving the uniqueness of the Earth would be easily done with a few bacteria cultures, soil samples, fossils or other concrete, testable and verifiable data. It is not able to be done by screwing around with the meaning of words to generalise that all planets are able to have native life just because one does, in spite of the fact that of the many observed planets all but that one do not have native life.


I most definitely did not assume that all things called planets must share a given property.
Again, you take POSSIBLE and turn it into MUST HAVE.

Your concrete, testable and verifiable data will prove life exists. That is much more than possible. Over and over again you ask for existence, not possibility.


But Earth is not an 'example' of a planet, that assumes all planets share qualities with Earth, as I said.

Lunacy.
Of course Earth is an example of a planet.
All planets share the qualities of a planet with Earth.
This is entirely regardless of the fact that planets may have qualities beyond their qualities that define them as planets and do not necessarily share them with all planets.


Let's run this with a different example:

Mercury is an example of a planet
Life does not exist on Mercury
Therefore, it is not possible for life to exist on planets


You can’t do that and you know it. We can make a conclusion about planets there, but not the one you are attempting.
Let me fix it for you.

Mercury is an example of a planet.
Life does not exist on Mercury.
Therefore, it is possible to have planets where life does not exist.

One planet cannot prove anything about every other planet in the universe. Here's the valid form:

[1] Things exist called planets
[2] One thing called a planet is called Earth
[3] This particular thing called a planet has a property called native life
[4] Therefore, native life exists on this particular thing called a planet

That's it. You can conclude things about Earth by observing Earth, but you can't conclude things about properties of other planets by observing Earth because they are not Earth.


There is no line [4]. You did nothing but restate line [3].

The colour of this thing is blue.
Therefore, this thing is blue in colour.

That’s what you just did.



No, it is not possible that Hitler was President of the United States, because Adolf Hitler was not President of the United States. This is a probability zero scenario. Nor was it possible just because you didn't know it wasn't. Reality doesn't care what you know when it's deciding if things happen or not.


Whenever we state something as true, not true, possible or impossible, it is always to the best of our current knowledge.
No one can ever ‘know’ Reality with complete certainty, just what we observe.
Reality doesn’t ‘decide’ or ‘care’ anything.


But it isn't possible for all animals to have fur, is it? There's many animals for which it is in fact impossible. I don't see why you think re-wording the example will change how wrong it is.


Until you tell me more than ‘animal’ it is possible that it has fur.
It is possible that it has feathers.
It is possible that it has scales.

Do I know if it has fur? Of course not. But because it is an animal, having fur is one of the possibilities.

Remember our 2 slit/photon experiment?

Just because I observed that the photon went through slit number 2 does not change the fact that before observing, before KNOWING, it was possible for the photon to travel through either slit, or in fact, to travel through BOTH slits.


Every example I showed used the same ridiculous generalisation as you.

No, none of them did. The fact that you believe that simply demonstrates the considerably large chasm of understanding between us.

I comprehend the points you are making, but I disagree. If you believe that you used the same generalization, then you do not comprehend the points I am making.
Perhaps I need to find a new way to communicate them to you.


Your argument is basically:

If there were a designer I would see things that appeared to be designed
I see things that appear to be designed
Therefore there is a designer.

This is a logical fallacy called affirmation of the consequent; 'A implies B, B is true, therefore A is true' is not valid.

Except that you are missing a very key piece.
B is TRUE only if A is TRUE.

It is much more than A implies B.


We have also never observed aliens. 'Life native to this planet' is not the same thing as 'life native to another planet,' and we require separate proof of the latter.

You’re right, they are not the same thing, but they are subsets of one thing, life.
If we want to declare that life native to other planets does exist, we will need proof.

Once again, you try to blend proof of existence with what is POSSIBLE.


Seriously, if you walked into a house and saw someone had a porcelain owl on the mantelpiece, would you assume that proved all houses can have porcelain owls on the mantelpiece even though many houses do not have a mantelpiece? If this was the first time you had seen one, you wouldn't even be able to say for sure if there could be other porcelain owls or other mantelpieces, so it would be absolutely ludicrous to assume on the basis of this one house that it was possible ['capable of happening'] in all houses.


Sure, it’s possible.
Any other house could POSSIBLY have a mantelpiece and a porcelain owl.


We have never observed life native to another planet. We have never observed magic. Until one is observed, both have the same level of evidence, that being 'none credible.' Both have claimed, unverifiable evidence, such as UFO sightings and psychics.

That would be equivalent IF perhaps we had evidence of Green Magic, and we wanted to consider the possibility of Blue Magic. We have evidence of one kind of native life. We have no evidence of any kind of magic.

Correction:

Mercury is an example of a planet
Life does not occur on Mercury
Therefore, it is possible for life to not occur on planets

Beat me to that one.
:)

Originally Posted by Willamena
If the teacher is worth his weight, he will present both sides and aguments for and against each.
No he won't. A teacher worth his weight will restrict the topic of a science class to matters that deal with science.

Should a topic come up that is beyond science, a teacher worth his salt will state "this is not a question that science can answer" and resume the lesson.
That's not a "teacher worth his weight," that's a teacher worthy of his salary.

Possible is the opposite of 'impossible.' When something is possible, it means it is capable of happening. If we have no reason to believe something is capable of happening, we cannot call it possible.
But we can. It is possible that unicorns existed. We have no reason to believe it is true.

If you want to assume something is possible ['capable of happening'] you must first show it is indeed capable of happening. Until then, you are stuck in the limbo of 'we do not know if it is possible or impossible,' which shortens to 'may be possible.'
Possible (http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0596713.html) means "may be." A unicorn is a magical beast that can only be approached by virgin women. The possibility that this "may be" true has no foundation in demonstrating any part of it; unless a unicorn can be found and the statement disproven, it is always possibly (http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0596716.html) true.

We need to observe something before we can judge it capable of happening. We cannot assume it capable of happening until then, so we cannot describe it as 'possible' until then either.
No, we need to be able to imagine it before we can judge it possible, as that is what brings the idea of it into existence. Until then, it is neither possible nor impossible; nonexistence has no properties.

You cannot generate a test that would disprove the existence of an omnipotent God;

The problem is it fails two tests: firstly, ID's designer is unobservable and mysterious.
We cannot generate a test for this 'theory' because we know of no properties of the central mechanism, the designer; we therefore cannot say 'in case A, we would expect the designer to do X' and then examine case A to see if that has happened.
This is particularly amusing since evolution (in terms of new families, or orders) is also completely unprovable, and is virtually unsupported by the fossile record. There are only a very few debatable intermediate types of animals. Darwin himself stated that the fossil record doesn't support his theory. More recent secular scientists have said the same thing. Evolution is not observable or repeatable, but people treat it as science. Creationism can be 'prooved' the same as evolution - look at the fossil record and see what makes sense. Virtually all mutations result in a detriment to an animal, but some are beneficial - thus new species. However, no known mutation has resulted in an INCREASE in genetic information, so the evidence points away from animals gaining information in their DNA. So, based on fossil records, it depends on your presuppositions. Based on DNA, evolutions appears improbable. Based on information theory, evolution also seems unlikely. So, with evolution and creationism both being unrepeatable, unobservable, and unmeasureable, why do some insist evolution is more 'scientific'?

This is particularly amusing since evolution (in terms of new families, or orders) is also completely unprovable, and is virtually unsupported by the fossile record. There are only a very few debatable intermediate types of animals. Darwin himself stated that the fossil record doesn't support his theory. More recent secular scientists have said the same thing. Evolution is not observable or repeatable, but people treat it as science. Creationism can be 'prooved' the same as evolution - look at the fossil record and see what makes sense. Virtually all mutations result in a detriment to an animal, but some are beneficial - thus new species. However, no known mutation has resulted in an INCREASE in genetic information, so the evidence points away from animals gaining information in their DNA. So, based on fossil records, it depends on your presuppositions. Based on DNA, evolutions appears improbable. Based on information theory, evolution also seems unlikely. So, with evolution and creationism both being unrepeatable, unobservable, and unmeasureable, why do some insist evolution is more 'scientific'?

Evolution may seem unlikely if you don't understand the evidence, but it is still far more likely than divine creation.

Evolution can be measured and observed and repeated in a lab with quickly reproducing organisms. By changing the conditions, the fittest ones for those conditions survive, and mutations sometimes result in even fitter organsims which are better adapted. eventually they become so differentiated from the original that a new species is created. evolution.

This is particularly amusing since evolution (in terms of new families, or orders) is also completely unprovable, and is virtually unsupported by the fossile record.

Ok. This is interesting. Unless of course you have been listening to that crank Hovind.

There are only a very few debatable intermediate types of animals. Darwin himself stated that the fossil record doesn't support his theory.

Darwin said that nothing had been found (yet) and that could be used against his theory.

More recent secular scientists have said the same thing.

Ok who?

Evolution is not observable or repeatable, but people treat it as science.

Microevolution has been observed and repeated.

Macroevolution has not. Unless of course you know how to speed up time in a confined space or know how to build a time machine.


Creationism can be 'prooved' the same as evolution - look at the fossil record and see what makes sense.


Ok. Give me the test to prove or disprove the existence of God.


Virtually all mutations result in a detriment to an animal, but some are beneficial - thus new species.

What? Ok people with Cycle cell are a new species?

However, no known mutation has resulted in an INCREASE in genetic information, so the evidence points away from animals gaining information in their DNA.

What? You do understand mutation right?

So, based on fossil records, it depends on your presuppositions. Based on DNA, evolutions appears improbable.


Riiiiight. Do explain why the chimp and Bonobo have 98% of our DNA.


Based on information theory, evolution also seems unlikely.

No not really.


So, with evolution and creationism both being unrepeatable, unobservable, and unmeasureable, why do some insist evolution is more 'scientific'?

Wow. You need to read up on genetics and evolution. Reading Johnson and Hoyle doesn't give you the basics.

This is particularly amusing since evolution (in terms of new families, or orders) is also completely unprovable,

Congratulations, you just defined a theory.

and is virtually unsupported by the fossile record.

Your arguments are so old, and so often repeated, I found one website that systematically refutes every one of them. Try to find new material that has NOT already been shredded scientifically.

http://newton.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html

Darwin himself stated that the fossil record doesn't support his theory.

"Some creationists cite what they say is an incomplete fossil record as evidence for the failure of evolutionary theory. The fossil record was incomplete in Darwin's time, but many of the important gaps that existed then have been filled by subsequent paleontological research."

More recent secular scientists have said the same thing.

Find one peer critiqued and accepted refutation of evolution. That young earth idiot doesn't count.

Evolution is not observable or repeatable, but people treat it as science.

"Special creationists argue that "no one has seen evolution occur." This misses the point about how science tests hypotheses. We don't see Earth going around the sun or the atoms that make up matter. We "see" their consequences. Scientists infer that atoms exist and Earth revolves because they have tested predictions derived from these concepts by extensive observation and experimentation."

Learn how science works before spouting off.

Creationism can be 'prooved' the same as evolution - look at the fossil record and see what makes sense.

"Perhaps the most persuasive fossil evidence for evolution is the consistency of the sequence of fossils from early to recent. Nowhere on Earth do we find, for example, mammals in Devonian (the age of fishes) strata, or human fossils coexisting with dinosaur remains. Undisturbed strata with simple unicellular organisms predate those with multicellular organisms, and invertebrates precede vertebrates; nowhere has this sequence been found inverted. Fossils from adjacent strata are more similar than fossils from temporally distant strata. The most reasonable scientific conclusion that can be drawn from the fossil record is that descent with modification has taken place as stated in evolutionary theory. "




Virtually all mutations result in a detriment to an animal, but some are beneficial - thus new species. However, no known mutation has resulted in an INCREASE in genetic information, so the evidence points away from animals gaining information in their DNA.

Tell that to the approximatly 1 in 2000 or so males that are born with a full extra chromosome. Google Klinefelter's Syndrome.

Additionally: "The evolution of complex molecular systems can occur in several ways. Natural selection can bring together parts of a system for one function at one time and then, at a later time, recombine those parts with other systems of components to produce a system that has a different function. Genes can be duplicated, altered, and then amplified through natural selection. The complex biochemical cascade resulting in blood clotting has been explained in this fashion. "

So, based on fossil records, it depends on your presuppositions. Based on DNA, evolutions appears improbable. Based on information theory, evolution also seems unlikely. So, with evolution and creationism both being unrepeatable, unobservable, and unmeasureable, why do some insist evolution is more 'scientific'?

You fail.

Why Is This Still Going On?!


Someone For The Love Of God (;)) Stop It!

If we have observed something happening, then we are not trying to say it is possible, we are saying it is true.

False, we are demonstrating it capable of happening. This shows it is indeed 'possible' and not 'unknown to be possible or impossible.'

In your definitions, you are never allowing for ‘possible’, you only have impossible, ‘may be possible’ and true. You have simply redefined ‘possible’ to ‘may be possible’ for yourself to argue against my position.

Possible means 'Capable of happening.' This means that it is a statement which removes the concept of impossibility, its opposite. The fact that possible has an opposite term precludes it being a neutral term. There's no way to be the opposite of the middle, or negative zero.

In our inquiry, there is impossible [a state which cannot happen], 'not known to be impossible' or 'may be possible' [what you call possible], where there is simply no disproof but also no proof, 'possible,' where clear non-subjective evidence indicating something can happen here has been found, but not the specific thing itself, and certain, where the specific thing has also been found.

'Possible' requires evidence of non-impossibility. Your 'possible' is the state where there is no evidence of that, in other words, the step below.

If you believe I have your position wrong, then I would like to know under what conditions you will agree that something is ‘possible’ that we can’t also, or better describe as ‘true’, because each time you talk about ‘possible’ you keep demanding evidence that would prove it ‘true’ not possible.

Possibility implies something is capable of happening in a given set of circumstances. For example, when I flip a coin, because I know it has three sides called heads, tails and 'edge' respectively, I know it is possible for me to flip heads. This is because I have observed a side called heads exists, and I have flipped it before.

This does not mean it is certain I will flip heads on that flip, a subsequent flip, or for that matter ever. 'Possible' requires concrete knowledge a state is able to exist in a given circumstance; we have no concrete knowledge that such a state exists for alien life until we have found some alien life. Until then, it is like suggesting I may flip a side which is neither heads, tails, nor the edge: sure, I can't rule it out before testing, but that doesn't mean I'm able to assume it can happen.

However, you are suggesting possibility transfers among groups, so if I have an object called 'coin,' I can declare it is 'possible' to flip heads with that object. But what if I look at it and it has two tails, or two sides not called heads or tails? I haven't flipped the coin yet, so is it still 'possible' just because the object is called coin? No, it may be possible for a given object called 'coin' to flip heads, it is possible if that coin has at least one side called heads, and it is true that I have flipped heads with that coin if I flip heads with that coin.

And here is the hazard of using a term which can be affirmative or neutral. In the case of the aliens, that means if I find any aliens then alien life on that planet is possible and that particular type of life exists; however, you want intelligent alien life. That requires further investigation, though now 'native life is capable of happening on this planet' is a valid assumption, even though we do not know if the specific form we're looking for is yet.

How do you get similar out of “capable of being true” and true?

Something possible has the ability to be true in a given circumstance; this is because it is not impossible. Were it impossible, it would lack the ability to be true. The capability to be true means something can actually be true, so there's similarity.

The assumption being made is that something is ‘possible’. It’s a valid assumption. I don’t need to prove the something to be true if all we are assuming is the something is possible.

You need to prove it is able to be true to call it possible. Showing a case where it is true is the easiest way, given the only other way is to disprove its ability to be false, which sorta requires total knowledge of everything.

You cannot assume it can exist without proof it can exist, your 'possible' is just 'not proven to be impossible' and worthless as an assumption in any specific case. All assumptions must be true, not just not known to be false. You cannot therefore assume life on other planets is 'possible' with your definition of the term because the assumption is worthless, or with my definition because the assumption is unjustified.

I want to change it to life, because that is the most accurate term for what we are discussing.

No, it's the one that fits your generalisation the best, not the most accurate. We are talking, specifically, about life native to other planets, a concept which has never yet been observed in the universe. It is not known to be impossible, or 'possible' by your terms, but that still means it is not allowed as an assumption because an assumption must be true.

Also, you want intelligent life, 'life' will not cut it.

Are we doing a comedy routine or something now? That’s still not what I said.

Then explain what you said rather than just claiming 'that's not what I said.' I'm sorry I didn't read your mind, I must not have made magic possible by waving my hands around this morning. I'll do that later.

There are 2 ways to answer you.
For the first answer, let’s assume that you are using an honest example and that both objects are called boats under the same definition of the term

Yes, they share all the qualities of a ‘boat’.

This is an honest example. Jupiter only shares the properties with Earth of being a mass of something that orbits a star. That's exactly the same level of similarity as exists between a coracle and a Typhoon, both are masses of something that float on the sea.

For the second way to answer you, I need to be aware that boat has more than one definition. Since Earth and Jupiter are planets under the same definition, albeit they are different types of planets, your example is not fair.

False, they aren't. Jupiter is a type of planet called gas giant and Earth is a type of planet called 'solid life-supporting planet with atmosphere.' This is the same things as a type of boat called coracle compared to a type of boat called submarine: apples to oranges, there's nothing in common but a name and a gross description.

One definition of a boat includes small vessels that might be carried on a ship, one definition of a boat includes all inland vessels, regardless of size and one includes subs and ships.

Actually, all submarines are called 'boats,' it's not the definition that includes all ships. Why do you think I picked that instead of the heaviest ship I could find?

Since for both planet and life, you are arguing for a sub-section of both (human life and alien life, planet Earth and not planet Earth or maybe Gas Giant planet, hard to tell what subsection you want to use there), not a different definition, your example falls flat.

I'm not, I'm arguing that you're using a special case as grounds for a generalisation, a biased sample fallacy. The Earth is the only planet in the universe known to support life, so it's obviously not something broad generalisations can be based on.

Yes, it is valid.
It is possible for only one man to operate a boat. I do it all the time.

If you want to further define the boat in question (as perhaps a Typhoon class), we can give a more specific answer.

But it is impossible for many types of boat to be operated by one man, so the generalisation is invalid. You can't make a sweeping generalisation when the vast majority of the things you include within that generalisation disprove its accuracy. You would have to say 'some types of boat' to have an honest statement, and in that case, you would also have to say 'some types of planet' in your other statement, which simply shows off just how useless it is.

Earth is the only KNOWN planet with native life.
That is NOT equivalent to:
Earth is the only POSSIBLE planet with life.

You consistently equate KNOWN with POSSIBLE throughout our exchange.

No, I don't. Earth is the only observed planet with native life; this means it is the only planet where native life is a valid assumption, because it is the only place where that assumption is true. For all other planets, life may be either possible or impossible, meaning we must treat each one as a separate case when declaring if life is able to exist on them. Anything else leads to ridiculous declarations like that Mercury disproves the existence of all life in the universe.

You only know that, because you have made the observations and drawn that conclusion. We are no longer dealing with what is possible, but are dealing with what is True or Not True in that case.

So you believe the statement 'It is possible that I can flip heads with this coin' is incorrect and should be worded as 'It is true that I can flip heads with this coin,' even though possible is interchangeable with true in such a statement? What kind of neutral term is interchangeable with 'true,' exactly?

You keep wanting to stick the ‘all’ word in there before planets because it makes it look as though I’m actually saying there is life on all planets when we can observe that is not true. We can also observe that I’m not saying that.

You are saying it is possible on all planets, because you want all things called 'a planet' to have 'native life' as 'possible.' However, it is demonstrably not possible on many things called 'a planet.' Therefore, we're back to the start; your argument is useless because all it says is 'on a thing called a planet there may or may not be native life,' or 'On some things called a planet there can be native life' with only one example of 'some.'

This means native life cannot be assumed on any specific planet without proof of it, and so using aliens as an assumption is as hopelessly irrational as it always was.

If you find that the statement that life is possible on planets is too broad for your taste, we can begin to make observations and narrow it down to a subset of all planets that we can make a case for. We can exclude the types of planets for which our current knowledge tells us it is impossible for native life; Gas Giants, planets too hot or too cold etc. but you will still be left with the valid assumption that native life is possible on X subset of planets.
That’s possible, NOT known.

No, it's not possible either. It is not known to be impossible. Stop using possible, it has an additional meaning as a positive term and you are constantly trying to use that meaning to make aliens a valid assumption.

I most definitely did not assume that all things called planets must share a given property.
Again, you take POSSIBLE and turn it into MUST HAVE.

False. You said they must have a property called 'native life' in a state where it is possible, meaning not impossible. Any observed example of a planet where native life does not exist disproves this.

That is the only meaning of it that means you're saying anything different to what I am. If you're not saying that, you agree with me and your aliens cannot be assumed, so your supposedly designed objects cannot have an assumption of an alien designer and your entire argument destroys itself.

Hence why you resist using a neutral term as opposed to one with both a positive and neutral meaning. You can't accept another term and still have an argument left afterwards.

Your concrete, testable and verifiable data will prove life exists. That is much more than possible. Over and over again you ask for existence, not possibility.

Possibility requires proof of a lack of impossibility. I cannot evaluate there are three possible ways for a double-faced coin to land without knowing what all three of them are. I cannot evaluate that life is possible without demonstrating examples of it in the place it's supposed to be possible. The most I can say is I don't yet know it to be impossible. This is why I say 'might be possible.'

Lunacy.
Of course Earth is an example of a planet.

No, it's a specific planet with specific qualities. You could push things and say it's an example of a life-supporting planet, but other planets are so massively different as to preclude any description of the Earth as an 'example.' It is a particular planet.

All planets share the qualities of a planet with Earth.

That being that they are 'a relatively large mass of accreted matter in orbit around a star.' That's it, the definition of planets is they're huge space-turds. You realise there's no actual scientific description of what a 'planet' is, yes? It's just a word for 'big thing orbiting a star.'

This is entirely regardless of the fact that planets may have qualities beyond their qualities that define them as planets and do not necessarily share them with all planets.

And yet you can generalise the same things are possible on anything called a planet. Interesting.

You can’t do that and you know it.

Why not? You did. Isn't it odd that something you claim as a neutral term is negative when you add 'not' in front of it? Could that be because it's a positive term, perhaps?

We can make a conclusion about planets there, but not the one you are attempting.
Let me fix it for you.

Mercury is an example of a planet.
Life does not exist on Mercury.
Therefore, it is possible to have planets where life does not exist.

But that's not the same line of reasoning you used, is it? You claimed that because life is possible on one planet, life is possible on anything that is called a planet. Therefore, if life is not possible on one planet, by the same reasoning, life is not possible on any other thing called a planet.

There is no line [4]. You did nothing but restate line [3].

The colour of this thing is blue.
Therefore, this thing is blue in colour.

That’s what you just did.

Correct. And that is the only valid conclusion we can make about planets with an example of just one.

Whenever we state something as true, not true, possible or impossible, it is always to the best of our current knowledge.
No one can ever ‘know’ Reality with complete certainty, just what we observe.

Correct. Therefore we cannot declare unknowns to be possible without gathering the proper amount of data about them.

Until you tell me more than ‘animal’ it is possible that it has fur.
It is possible that it has feathers.
It is possible that it has scales.

Do I know if it has fur? Of course not. But because it is an animal, having fur is one of the possibilities.

No, it's not. The specific animal does not care that you do not know about it. If it does not have fur, there is no possibility that it does. If it is unknown, then we can say it is 'not known to be impossible.' That's a far better description than 'possible.'

And since your only objection appears to be the choice of a word, why do you care at all?

Remember our 2 slit/photon experiment?

Just because I observed that the photon went through slit number 2 does not change the fact that before observing, before KNOWING, it was possible for the photon to travel through either slit, or in fact, to travel through BOTH slits.

Because it has been observed to be capable of doing so by looking at the results of previous experiments. You had all the things it could do observed already, that's how you knew they were capable of happening. According to your weird definition above, that made them 'true.' This is just like needing to be able to analyse a coin closely to know what faces you are able to flip, or analysing a planet closely to know if anything is able to live on it.

I comprehend the points you are making, but I disagree. If you believe that you used the same generalization, then you do not comprehend the points I am making.
Perhaps I need to find a new way to communicate them to you.

Perhaps you need to stop insisting we keep using words with abusable multiple meanings? 'Not known to be impossible' or 'may be possible' is the same as your 'possible' but is unable to imply a positive state like 'possible' does. Why do you insist on using 'possible' if not because it has a positive meaning?

Except that you are missing a very key piece.
B is TRUE only if A is TRUE.

It is much more than A implies B.

False. Objects that appear to be designed only imply a designer, they do not require one unless they are certainly designed, which is impossible to determine since there is no known upper limit to the complexity or order that can be produced by natural processes. A termite mound appears to be designed, it is an intricate structure which is both large and complex. Yet a termite mound has no designer, it is created by the simple route behaviour of a colony of unintelligent creatures.

Further, the kitten example serves as a counter-example here. Until you know it is true that B is only true if A is true, you are not able to assume it. You never understood what that kitten was about, did you? It's about the requirement to show that an apparently designed object requires a designer. No properties of the object are capable of doing that, only showing the designer can exist and the designer can create the design will suffice.

Anything else is affirmation of the consequent.

You’re right, they are not the same thing, but they are subsets of one thing, life.
If we want to declare that life native to other planets does exist, we will need proof.

In much the same way as we would to use a word with an affirmative meaning like 'possible.' You should always avoid words that can potentially say things you don't mean, and your protracted defence of using a word with both a neutral and an affirmative meaning is odd to say the least.

You should use a neutral term to describe this, to prevent misinterpretation by yourself or others. 'Not known to be impossible' is a better term than 'possible,' as is 'may be possible.' You have so far resisted both terms being used and instead attacked me for pointing out there is an abusable positive meaning to 'possible' which your aliens hypothesis hinges on.

Once again, you try to blend proof of existence with what is POSSIBLE.

Because the most common meaning of possible implies a positive state, not a neutral state. If something is possible, that means it is not impossible. What you want to say it that it is not known to be impossible. You have chosen the wrong word, and for some reason are resisting using a clearer term. Maybe because if you acknowledge alien life merely has a neutral state of proof it will be blatantly obvious that your arguments for assuming a positive state ['aliens can exist' rather than 'aliens may be capable of existing'] are invalid, and your whole defence of the equally flawed thinking of ID will collapse.

You must be able to assume alien designers to assume design by them, but you cannot make the assumption of alien life until it is found to be true, not merely in a state where it is not proven to be untrue.

That would be equivalent IF perhaps we had evidence of Green Magic, and we wanted to consider the possibility of Blue Magic. We have evidence of one kind of native life. We have no evidence of any kind of magic.

No, we have tons of evidence, actually. Just none of it useful or empirical data. Oddly enough, the precise same thing as the data on intelligent alien life. It's funny how you can spend an entire post stating that observational data makes something 'true' rather than 'possible' and then turn around and say something isn't possible and shouldn't be considered equal, because of a lack of observational data. Doublethink much?

Oh yes, I also forgot to note your constant conflation of 'life' with 'intelligent life that designs things.' One does not follow the other, so why, even if we can make an affirmative statement that life can exist on other planets, can we assume that life to have a trait known to only occur in one species on one planet in the entire universe? You've done nothing to prove things that aren't human either can be intelligent or require intelligence to design things, I've noticed, instead wheeling all the way back to life. You need more than 'life' to get your designer.

I just don’t have time today to respond to each portion, and we’re re-treading ground.
I don’t accept your usage of impossible, not-impossible, may be possible, possible and I have not seen any reason you have presented that would convince me to.

I’ll try to hit the highlights, either the places that I see as crucial to our disagreement that other issues flow from or something just fun to respond to.

However, you are suggesting possibility transfers among groups, so if I have an object called 'coin,' I can declare it is 'possible' to flip heads with that object. But what if I look at it and it has two tails, or two sides not called heads or tails? I haven't flipped the coin yet, so is it still 'possible' just because the object is called coin?

No, because it is now MORE than a coin; like a ‘2 headed coin’ or a ‘tampered coin’ or a ‘trick coin’ etc. It may be a coin, but it has other properties we now know that preclude our previously valid assumption.



You need to prove it is able to be true to call it possible. Showing a case where it is true is the easiest way, given the only other way is to disprove its ability to be false, which sorta requires total knowledge of everything.


“Prove it is able to be true by showing a case where it is true.”
I keep doing that and you keep rejecting it.

I want to prove that it is able to be true that planets have native life.
I need to show a case where this is true.
Earth is a case where this is true.

THEREFORE it is able to be true that planets have native life.


Also, you want intelligent life, 'life' will not cut it.

Not yet I don’t.
You won’t let me have life, so I’m not even asking for intelligent life until we get past the first hurdle.


Then explain what you said rather than just claiming 'that's not what I said.' I'm sorry I didn't read your mind, I must not have made magic possible by waving my hands around this morning. I'll do that later.


I’m going to make an assumption here that you just read over my statement too quickly both times and that you are capable of reading what I said without mind reading tricks.

Here are the pertinent posts:

But we're not assuming other concrete things do exist.

Like what?
I think you misread me, your question does not follow.

Repeating the comment:
But we're not assuming other concrete things do exist.

What 'concrete things' are we assuming do not exist?

I’m confident the misunderstanding will be clear to you now.


I'm not, I'm arguing that you're using a special case as grounds for a generalisation, a biased sample fallacy. The Earth is the only planet in the universe known to support life, so it's obviously not something broad generalisations can be based on.

If I was making the broad generalization that life exists somewhere out there because life exists here, I would agree with you. I can’t generalize what is KNOWN on one to something KNOWN on all, or many. But what is POSSIBLE on one can be POSSIBLE on others.


But it is impossible for many types of boat to be operated by one man, so the generalisation is invalid. You can't make a sweeping generalisation when the vast majority of the things you include within that generalisation disprove its accuracy. You would have to say 'some types of boat' to have an honest statement, and in that case, you would also have to say 'some types of planet' in your other statement, which simply shows off just how useless it is.


Sure, make it “some types of planet”. That’s fine. It will still leave the possibility and that’s all we need.


Anything else leads to ridiculous declarations like that Mercury disproves the existence of all life in the universe.


Your Mercury syllogism was not valid as was pointed out to you twice.


But that's not the same line of reasoning you used, is it?

Yes, it is the very same line of reasoning I used.


You claimed that because life is possible on one planet, life is possible on anything that is called a planet. Therefore, if life is not possible on one planet, by the same reasoning, life is not possible on any other thing called a planet.


That’s not the same reasoning at all.
We observe a condition or attribute on A planet.

My reasoning is that that condition or attribute A is POSSIBLE on other planets.
Your reasoning (as written above, not necessarily what you believe) is that that condition or attribute A is TRUE on all other planets.


Correct. And that is the only valid conclusion we can make about planets with an example of just one.

That’s not a conclusion at all, you just restated the observation. You’re into the truism category now, or maybe a tautology.


No, it's not. The specific animal does not care that you do not know about it. If it does not have fur, there is no possibility that it does.

If you’re going to examine whether it has fur, we aren’t talking about possible anything then are we?
This is a mountain of our disagreement right here.


Objects that appear to be designed only imply a designer, they do not require one unless they are certainly designed, which is impossible to determine since there is no known upper limit to the complexity or order that can be produced by natural processes.

And, here is the other peak of our disagreement. Bolded even.
I am suggesting we have found things that we determine to be certainly designed on planet Skeletor.
You believe that is an impossibility.

Congratulations, you just defined a theory.



Your arguments are so old, and so often repeated, I found one website that systematically refutes every one of them. Try to find new material that has NOT already been shredded scientifically.

http://newton.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html

Checked out the URL - doesn't address much with actual examples, but rather states stuff as facts without supporting docs.


"Some creationists cite what they say is an incomplete fossil record as evidence for the failure of evolutionary theory. The fossil record was incomplete in Darwin's time, but many of the important gaps that existed then have been filled by subsequent paleontological research."


interesting. please contact National Geographic who state that looking at the fossil record is like looking at a film with 999 out of 1000 frames missing - 99.9% imagination?


Find one peer critiqued and accepted refutation of evolution. That young earth idiot doesn't count.

Sr. Paleontologists at the British Museum of Natural History, Colin Patterson (1979) In response for a request to show a reasonably complete intermediate fossil, "I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."



"Special creationists argue that "no one has seen evolution occur." This misses the point about how science tests hypotheses. We don't see Earth going around the sun or the atoms that make up matter. We "see" their consequences. Scientists infer that atoms exist and Earth revolves because they have tested predictions derived from these concepts by extensive observation and experimentation."

Learn how science works before spouting off.

And this differs from creation how? Oh BTW, how did you do in your experimental psychology and calculus based experimental design classes? How about partical dynamics, tunnel theory, or special relativity? Just curious since you come off as an ass.

Tell that to the approximatly 1 in 2000 or so males that are born with a full extra chromosome. Google Klinefelter's Syndrome.

It does not result in an increase in information. In addition to this, neither does an animal's ability to adapt (adaptation). The information is already there.

Additionally: "The evolution of complex molecular systems can occur in several ways. Natural selection can bring together parts of a system for one function at one time and then, at a later time, recombine those parts with other systems of components to produce a system that has a different function. Genes can be duplicated, altered, and then amplified through natural selection. The complex biochemical cascade resulting in blood clotting has been explained in this fashion. "

Have you ever tried to read this explanation? A leap of faith, for sure.

You fail.
:p I can't fail by exploring both sides of an issue. My point is that evolution is no more 'proovable' than creationism, so why do you insist on asserting that evolution is more scientific.

Sr. Paleontologists at the British Museum of Natural History, Colin Patterson (1979) In response for a request to show a reasonably complete intermediate fossil, "I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."


Colin was misquoted and that statement is often parroted by the creationist crowd.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

This is hilarious. People shouting unto the rooftops with exceeding great ignorance and arrogance. However said Kleinfelter's was a gain of useful information just because an extra copy of a chromosome has been gained? Go tell that to the 1 in 20000 infertile males with 1-inch penises and B-cup breasts. Or like in Down's syndrome, where trisomy (3 copies of Chr.21) occurs. Hmm, if that's an example of a mutation producing new information (ie evolution), I'd rather put my bet on creationism.
Also, who of the people here has looked into mammalian genomics? Have you done any tertiary-level medical genetics? If not, go read a book, then tell someone they're wrong on an issue you know nothing about. Why do monkeys and bonobos have 98% similar DNA to humans?? (and chickens have ~80% similar DNA??) The genetic code is almost fully for making the body's cells. Humans and animals have similar cells, muscle, neuron, epithelial and connective. The part of the genetic code that codes for the way cells are used as building blocks is very small compared to what goes into making the cells. Humans look pretty different from each other right? Go look at the diff between a short white Dutch woman and a tall black African man..., or that humunguous Chinese basketballer and a South African Xhosa man Thats a total genetic difference of 0.012% of coding DNA. Think about it. Before you can use that argument you must know what the DNA is actually coding for. And when you find that out, the DNA difference argument falls flat.
Mutations in DNA don't provide new enhancements of phenotype. A huge percentage of DNA mutations are silent, because they fall in to the region of DNA that is NON-coding (ie introns - 95% of DNA- Btw, this isn't vestigial junk, it provides guidance and markers for DNA replication proteins, as well as protection for the coding DNA), the rest, in the coding DNA, are either missense, frameshift, or deletion/insertion mutations. These cause a change in the reading frame and the protein comes out misshapen, short, or not at all (chaperones are the cells cleanup crew). Chromosomal abnormalities, such as aneuploidy or polyploidy, where there are too many of one chromosome, generally result in antenatal death of fetus, or serious malformation leading to early death. Not one random genetic change identified in mammalian genomes so far has been a so-called "good" mutation, producing enhancing effects on the phenotype of the animal. All disruptions, changes etc of the genetic code are detrimental to it, and to the organism.

Before you can use that argument you must know what the DNA is actually coding for. And when you find that out, the DNA difference argument falls flat.

Around 85% of DNA is completely useless, actually, so that's not much of an argument at all. Also, we're into the 'all mutations are harmful or beneficial' nonsense, I see. The vast majority of mutations are not harmful or beneficial, they are neutral and have no detrimental or beneficial effect.

Not one random genetic change identified in mammalian genomes so far has been a so-called "good" mutation, producing enhancing effects on the phenotype of the animal. All disruptions, changes etc of the genetic code are detrimental to it, and to the organism.

I guess you missed sickle-cell anaemia which protects people from malaria, hm? That's beneficial, y'see. Also, why are we restricting this to mammals when evolution is the same for bacteria, fish, lizards, insects or mammals? Could it be because we know bacteria have evolved that eat wholely artificial industrial by-products like Nylon and that annihilates this argument?

No, because it is now MORE than a coin; like a ‘2 headed coin’ or a ‘tampered coin’ or a ‘trick coin’ etc. It may be a coin, but it has other properties we now know that preclude our previously valid assumption.

The assumption was never valid, we know that because we now know it was not valid. Without examining the coin, we cannot know if flipping heads is a valid or invalid assumption. That's the entire point of making sure all assumptions are true, not just 'possible.'

If we only care that an assumption hasn't been shown to be impossible, we can develop a supeficially reasonable but completely useless and wrong theory rather easily. The old thunder gods were much like your 'designer' in this way, watch:

Ancient societies made three observations from a thunderstorm:

1. They saw flashes of light behind the clouds
2. They heard great booms and crashes
3. They saw flashes of light extend from the sky to the ground

Ok, they thought, what the hell might be causing that? So, they looked at the things they knew. Well, a forge produces sparks and crashes, they reasoned, so maybe that's what the flashes and booming sounds are, a really big forge in the sky.

Ok, what do we have now? Well, big flashes that come from the sky and sink into the ground. Well, spears do that, don't they...Hey, maybe the guy working the forge is making spears for some other guy who's his boss to throw at the ground! Yeah, that explains everything! Um, right?

So we have observed facts fitted to observations, as with designer / design ['well, this looks like a designed thing!']. We have an internally consistant explanation that includes all data we have.

INCLUDES all the data. The trouble is, that's why we put it together, just to be something that could contain all that data. So if that's all it does, what use is it? With enough work you than make a semi-consistant explanation for any set of data no matter how bizarre. This is the problem with your aliens, and with ID: they're just something made up to be the pattern the stuff fits, with no real idea if there actually is a pattern in the stuff anyway.

“Prove it is able to be true by showing a case where it is true.”
I keep doing that and you keep rejecting it.

Because you have not done so.

I want to prove that it is able to be true that planets have native life.
I need to show a case where this is true.
Earth is a case where this is true.

THEREFORE it is able to be true that planets have native life.

No, you want to prove a planet which is not Earth has native life, and a specific one at that. You must therefore show that specific planet has native life, the generalisation is absolutely useless and meaningless in proving that.

It is also not 'able to be true.' On one planet it is able to be true, on others the truth or falsity is unknown. We need to prove the ability to be true on every example before it becomes a valid assumption.

I’m confident the misunderstanding will be clear to you now.

Nope. Maybe you're just not reading this the way I am.

'But we're not assuming other concrete things do exist.'

So I ask what are the other concrete things we are not assuming to exist. I'm really not sure how I was supposed to read that other than as 'but there are some other concrete things which we are not assuming exist [and should be?].' So what does it mean?

If I was making the broad generalization that life exists somewhere out there because life exists here, I would agree with you. I can’t generalize what is KNOWN on one to something KNOWN on all, or many. But what is POSSIBLE on one can be POSSIBLE on others.

Stop using possible. You know it's a poor choice of word and you know my objections to it. 'Not known to be impossible' is your term.

Sure, make it “some types of planet”. That’s fine. It will still leave the possibility and that’s all we need.

Wrong. From your perspective, you need not just a 'possiblility,' but a demonstration of 'non-impossibility,' because under your description of 'possible,' everything is possible. You cannot declare life can happen in a specific place with no proof of it happening, and indirect 'proof' does not cut it.

My reasoning is that that condition or attribute A is POSSIBLE on other planets.
Your reasoning (as written above, not necessarily what you believe) is that that condition or attribute A is TRUE on all other planets.

But here's the point I was actually making; if possible is the neutral term you said, why would adding 'not' make it negative?

That’s not a conclusion at all, you just restated the observation.

'Life exists on this planet, therefore life can exist on this planet.' The thing is, there's still places that life doesn't exist on this planet, so we still have possibilities involved here. You're acting like once we've found a penguin, we have 'life' and that's it; this is wrong, since we still debate dubious forms of Earth-life like Yetis and Bigfoot and they are still not regarded as a certainty even though life certainly exists here.

When searching for a specific type of life as opposed to life in general, you must demonstrate any life can exist before you get near being able to say your particular type even might.

If you’re going to examine whether it has fur, we aren’t talking about possible anything then are we?
This is a mountain of our disagreement right here.

There is no possibility that an animal without fur has fur. This means we cannot decare it not impossible for all animals to have fur, because observed cases disprove this statement.

And, here is the other peak of our disagreement. Bolded even.
I am suggesting we have found things that we determine to be certainly designed on planet Skeletor.
You believe that is an impossibility.

Because it is. Until we have done the following, we cannot declare a designer just because an object appears to be designed:

1. Demonstrated an object that appears to be designed is not the result of natural processes; in other words, show there is reason to suspect the appearence of design is not just that, an appearence.
2. Demonstrated an object that appears to be designed could not be created by unintelligent route behaviour, despite that complex objects such as cars are created by non-intelligent route labour [programmed robots] and there is no known limit to the level of complexity objects produced by evolved route behaviour could produce. This was the reason for the example of the kitten and the example of Termite mounds; we know that complex structures do come into existence through route behaviour, and we know of no limit to how complex.
3. Demonstrated that a designer is capable of existing on this planet for this object. Without that, you are unable to assume it validly, because your 'possible' rules out nothing.
4. Demonstrated that the designer had access to something [a 'builder'] that would allow creation of the object, since we know design doesn't always lead to a working apparatus, and we know a designer's job is to produce a design, not a working apparatus.

We can then declare with reasonable certainty that the object is designed. Shame ID doesn't even bother with step 4, isn't it?

Colin was misquoted and that statement is often parroted by the creationist crowd.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html
Thanks for the actual reference material - I appreciate it.

- clip -
Much more elequent than I could have stated... thanks.

The vast majority of mutations are not harmful or beneficial, they are neutral and have no detrimental or beneficial effect.

But... to my knowledge NONE has resulted in an increase in information. Insect immunity to pesticides, baterial immunity to antibiotics are either a result of information already contained in the DNA or a loss of information. This does not lead to 'evolution' as a likely explanation. Getting back on topic for just a second, 'creationism' can be tested just as well as 'evolution', and neither can be put in the same realm as Gravitational Theory or any other theory that is observable, measureable, and repeatable. Saying 'evolution' exceeds 'creationism' in these aspects, or vice versa, is simply pushing an agenda. So why the outcry and debate? Because right now evolutionism is being taught as fact and it simply isn't even close. It does not explain how new types (I'm not talking speciation here) of animals came into being.

This is hilarious. People shouting unto the rooftops with exceeding great ignorance and arrogance. However said Kleinfelter's was a gain of useful information just because an extra copy of a chromosome has been gained? Go tell that to the 1 in 20000 infertile males with 1-inch penises and B-cup breasts.

Do me a favor, and before you spout out your righteous indignation...read what was said before replying.

The poster stated "no known mutation has resulted in an INCREASE in genetic information"

Not "useful" information, just MORE information. Kleinfelter's results in an extra chromosome's wroth of information.

Is it useful? Probably not, but it's certainly MORE.

So go actually read first, then reply. You'll find you come off as less of an idiot when you do things in that order.

But... to my knowledge NONE has resulted in an increase in information. Insect immunity to pesticides, baterial immunity to antibiotics are either a result of information already contained in the DNA or a loss of information.

Nope.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

Getting back on topic for just a second, 'creationism' can be tested just as well as 'evolution'

No, it can't. Evolution generates testable hypotheses which have time and again been shown to be correct under experimental conditions. We have demonstrated evolution works in selective breeding of livestock and dogs, and entire industries are based on it, as is most of our knowledge of biology.

Creationism cannot generate a testable hypothesis because the primary mechanism is a mysterious omnipotent God which can do whatever it likes. There is no way to disprove this hypothesis because it can literally account for any evidence gathered, and an unfalsiable theory is worthless.

and neither can be put in the same realm as Gravitational Theory or any other theory that is observable, measureable, and repeatable.

Except that evolution is observable, falsifiable and repeatable, whereas creationism is not. Evolution is also the cornerstone of modern biology, and is assumed by many other theories that have been shown to hold up under experimental conditions. Were it false, most of our knowledge of biology would also have to be wrong.

There are many conditions under which evolution could be falsified; examples are given here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html). Also, since you are claiming information theory does falsify evolution, how can it also not be falsifiable? If something can be falsified it must be capable of being tested, after all.

It does not explain how new types (I'm not talking speciation here) of animals came into being.

See the link above, it does. See also

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB110.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_2.html

I suggest you check your statements against Talkorigins' index of creationist claims (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html) before making them, most of the usual ones are addressed there.

Nope.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

Interesting and relavent article. They fail to mention, and even refute without example, that none of their examples are new information. No one should deny that mutations exist, and some are beneficial. However, there is no mechanism for an increase in information that would be required for new types of animals or plants.
... selective breeding of livestock and dogs, and entire industries are based on it, as is most of our knowledge of biology.

Please don't confuse adaptation and selective breeding with the goo-to-you-via-the-zoo evotion of which I am speaking. We have not bred a new type of animal through selective breeding. We have seen different dogs and livestock.
Creationism cannot generate a testable hypothesis because the primary mechanism is a mysterious omnipotent God which can do whatever it likes. Except that evolution is observable, falsifiable and repeatable, whereas creationism is not.

Simply not true. If the fossil record and biology suggest that things were created, rather than morphing, then the data would lend itself to creationism. It is just as testable as evolution. To say otherwise is to decieve yourself and others. Evolution in the sense of new kinds of animals has never been observed. It is pure hypothesis. This is fine and as it should be - I have no problem with that. Take that and state that it is the only hypothesis cheapens science.

There are many conditions under which evolution could be falsified; examples are given here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html).
Cambrian explosion.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/chimeras.asp
Mutations are highly debatable in terms of new kinds of creatures

I suggest you check your statements against Talkorigins.
I go there all the time. A lot of their stuff is good and helps me look at both sides of the issue. However, they have an agenda and curiously state things as fact when it is just a hypothesis or possibility. I suggest you look at Answersingenesis.org to explore the creation side of the argument (they, of course, have an agenda as well).

The assumption was never valid, we know that because we now know it was not valid.

The assumption was always valid.
Was it true? No.

This right here is one of several key points that illustrate how far apart we are on not just what we are concluding, but what we are even saying in the first place.

We can make an assumption that something is true.
We can make an assumption that something is possible.

These 2 assumptions have different criteria in order to make them. You have throughout our discussion held me accountable to the former when I'm stating the latter.

Let's move your coin example into a situation that demonstrates this.

We assume we have a regular coin, with both a heads and a tails side.
[Assumption that something is true.]
We will flip the coin.
We assume that tails is a possibility.
[Assumption that something is a possible.]
The coin flip is heads.
Examination of the coin reveals a heads and a tails side.

Our first assumption is valid.
Our second assumption that tails is possible is not rendered invalid, even though the flip = tails is false.

We can do the same thing again, but with a difference that highlighhts what you are saying.

We assume we have a regular coin, with both a heads and a tails side.
[Assumption that something is true.]
We will flip the coin.
We assume that tails is a possibility.
[Assumption that something is possible.]
The coin flip is heads.
Examination of the coin reveals a heads and a heads side.

Our first assumption is not valid.
The fact that we flipped heads does not make our second assumption invalid, the first assumption being invalid makes our second assumption impossible to make and therefore invalid.


Equating this coin flip example to our question of life.

Coins flip tails = native life occurs on planets
Coins flip heads = native life does not occur on planets

Note:
We have not assumed that all coin flips will be either heads or tails.
We have not assumed that all planets will have or will not have native life.

We have outlined some known possibles.

Coins can have 2 sides with heads and will never flip coins = Planets can be Gas Giants that will never support life

We still know that flipping tails is a possible result for some coins, but we have identified some coins where this result is impossible. We still know that life is possible on some planets, but impossible on some planets.

We can say, flipping tails is possible with non-2 headed coins or life is possible on non-gas giant planets.

Our examples diverge with the number of variables. For flipping tails, the variables are very few. We need a coin 2 sides and we need one of them to be tails.
For life, the variables are too many and we aren't certain which ones are required to list the positives we need, just the negatives that preclude life.
It would be like saying, "We're not certain what we need to flip tails, other than it seems to be possible with coins that aren't those 2 headed kind."


Nope. Maybe you're just not reading this the way I am.

'But we're not assuming other concrete things do exist.'

So I ask what are the other concrete things we are not assuming to exist. I'm really not sure how I was supposed to read that other than as 'but there are some other concrete things which we are not assuming exist [and should be?].' So what does it mean?


But we're not assuming ANY other concrete things do exist.

Does the ANY in there help?
How can you ask for things NOT assumed to exist to be defined?


But here's the point I was actually making; if possible is the neutral term you said, why would adding 'not' make it negative?


Because it is the absence of possible in a negative direction.
Same as certain is the absence of possible in a positive direction.

2 headed coin, impossible to flip tails, certain to flip heads.

Perhaps if our language was structured different, we might have had impossible, possible and cerpossible, but we have what we have.


Because it is. Until we have done the following, we cannot declare a designer just because an object appears to be designed:

1. Demonstrated an object that appears to be designed is not the result of natural processes; in other words, show there is reason to suspect the appearence of design is not just that, an appearence.
2. Demonstrated an object that appears to be designed could not be created by unintelligent route behaviour, despite that complex objects such as cars are created by non-intelligent route labour [programmed robots] and there is no known limit to the level of complexity objects produced by evolved route behaviour could produce. This was the reason for the example of the kitten and the example of Termite mounds; we know that complex structures do come into existence through route behaviour, and we know of no limit to how complex.
3. Demonstrated that a designer is capable of existing on this planet for this object. Without that, you are unable to assume it validly, because your 'possible' rules out nothing.
4. Demonstrated that the designer had access to something [a 'builder'] that would allow creation of the object, since we know design doesn't always lead to a working apparatus, and we know a designer's job is to produce a design, not a working apparatus.

We can then declare with reasonable certainty that the object is designed. Shame ID doesn't even bother with step 4, isn't it?

Well, that's YOUR list, not exactly something with general consent.

1. When there is no known natural process that produces the result, we suspect that it is not just an appearance.
It is interesting to note with the context of the thread being ID etc. that evolution is a theory of a natural process based on observations, not an actual natural process observed. Given the vigor that you resist labelling an object as designed based on observations, I'm surprised you are not more skeptical of evolution, but that's a different discussion.

2. ??? Cars are defintely not created by rote behaviour, they are designed and built by a very complex intelligent system.
Who could possibly come across a fully automated car assembly plant with a lot full of cars and not know natural processes could not accomplish this.
There are many good reasons for science to continue pursuing the theory of evolution and there are many flaws in the theory of ID, enough that it doesn't deserve more than a footnote in any science class, but when you overstate the case, such as with the car assembly example, you stop making the issue about science and begin to make it about "them being wrong"

3. That would add strength to the idea, but is not a requirement.

4. I don't know what 4 is doing there at all. We don't have to understand how gravity works to know that it works. Much like 3, this would strengthen any position, but it is certainly not required.

The assumption was always valid.
Was it true? No.

No, it wasn't valid. A valid assumption must be true. The assumption was not true, and therefore was not valid.

We can make an assumption that something is true.
We can make an assumption that something is possible.

Wrong in both cases.

We cannot assume something is true without any proof. You are confusing the normal definition of 'assumption' [which is basically 'a guess'] with the scientific meaning, which is 'something proven to the point it is able to be regarded as true.' Scientific theories only assume premises to be true when there is significant evidence of their truth; they don't just declare something not known to be true is true as a premise like your examples. In both, you should examine the coin carefully first and state the initial assumption as 'to the best of our knowledge, it is true that we have a coin of this type.' This destroys your example.

By your definition of the term, the second assumption that something is 'possible' only means that it is 'not proven to be impossible.' Since this is the resting state of everything with no conclusive proof or disproof, such an assumption is worthless and adds nothing; an assumption is supposed to be something you are able to assume the truth or falsity of to define a theory, not just an 'I don't know.'

We assume we have a regular coin, with both a heads and a tails side.
[Assumption that something is true.]

We don't. We examine the coin to determine if that is true. We cannot assume what the coin is before we bother to examine it, that's nonsense.

We will flip the coin.
We assume that tails is a possibility.
[Assumption that something is a possible.]

Firstly, that's a hypothesis, not an assumption.

Secondly, wrong order. Because we first analysed the coin to determine that there was a side called tails, and that the coin was able to be placed with this side facing upwards, we can now state this hypothesis for this experiment: that barring any unknowns, the coin should be capable of landing with the side called tails facing upwards.

Our first assumption is valid.
Our second assumption that tails is possible is not rendered invalid, even though the flip = tails is false.

We should then repeat the experiment until we have at least one flip of tails to confirm our hypothesis that the coin is able to land tail-side-up from being flipped. If after many tests it does not ever flip tails, we should examine the coin again to determine if some other factor is affecting the result, since we know a state is capable of existing where the coin has the tail-side up, and our hypothesis is that it is able to land in this state after being flipped.

So, what we actually should have is this:

1. Based on our examination of the coin, we know it has three sides, called heads, tails, and edge. We will assume it has no additional sides which are invisible or otherwise undetectable, and we will assume it is unable to change its sides, barring direct observation of either phenomenon.
2. We known that coin can be placed with the head side down and tail side up, and will not suddenly flip over or otherwise alter itself. We therefore know a state called 'tails' is possible for this coin.
3. We have not observed the coin at any point not having a side called tails, so barring future observations, we will state our first assumption: that this coin has a side called tails and is able to come to rest with this side facing upwards.
4. We know from past flips of other coins that the coin is able to land on any of three sides, with the third much less frequent than either of the others. We have tested this coin and shown these three positions are also able to exist with this coin, by placing it on a surface and observing it does not attempt to alter its position or otherwise change to another configuration. We will therefore make our hypothesis: that when we flip this coin, it will be capable of coming to rest with the side called tails facing upwards.
5. For purposes of adequate trials, we will flip the coin 1,000 times and record the results, monitoring any environmental irregularities that may influence the results such as air temperature, and we will record these values and graph them against the flips later. We will use a mechanical device to flip each coin with equal force and height, to ensure a fair test.
6. We will also likewise flip a coin already known to be able to land on tails as a control to ensure that nothing is influencing the coin, as we will assume such a factor would also influence the second coin.

That is adequate testing; it is fair, thorough, bases its hypothesis on known premises, is repeatable, and includes a control item. You are stating your hypothesis ['tails is possible'] as an assumption, which isn't correct. You have the whole process backwards; we can't assume that the coin is regular before we even bother to examine it, and we can't assume an untested assumption is true, so we can't use it.

We assume we have a regular coin, with both a heads and a tails side.
[Assumption that something is true.]
We will flip the coin.
We assume that tails is a possibility.
[Assumption that something is possible.]
The coin flip is heads.
Examination of the coin reveals a heads and a heads side.

Our first assumption is not valid.

Neither was it ever valid for us to make that assumption. We did not know it was true, nor did we ever attempt to check if it was true.

The fact that we flipped heads does not make our second assumption invalid, the first assumption being invalid makes our second assumption impossible to make and therefore invalid.

It also makes it invalid. We never knew there was any possibility of there being a side called tails on the coin we were flipping, so it was never valid for us to state one was capable of being there before we examined it.

There is a possibility for an object called coin to have a side called tails; however, when you get to a specific object called coin as opposed to the general group of objects called coin, that possibility is either 0 or 1; there either is such a side or there isn't. If there isn't ever a side called tails on the object called coin, it will never be possible to flip tails with that coin.

We have not assumed that all coin flips will be either heads or tails.
We have not assumed that all planets will have or will not have native life.

Which is odd, since all planets will either have or not have native life. This is like failing to assume that a yes / no question will have the answer as either yes or no.

Coins can have 2 sides with heads and will never flip coins = Planets can be Gas Giants that will never support life

Well, some writers have made stories that described jellyfish-like creatures living in the gas 'seas' of such planets, so we can't actually rule out that some form of life may be able to exist on a gas giant without any sort of proof, much as we can't declare it a certainty. We have no observational evidence of such a creature being able to exist, however.

Why so quick to rule out unknowns? Isn't that what your entire argument is against doing?

We still know that flipping tails is a possible result for some coins, but we have identified some coins where this result is impossible. We still know that life is possible on some planets, but impossible on some planets.

Yes, but as said above, for any specific coin the probability collapses to 0 or 1; it is either able to happen or it is not possible. We must start from a neutral assumption anyway, that it might be possible, and try to determine which of these two states is correct for this planet. The argument that is is 'possible' because it is unknown to be false is meaningless.

Our examples diverge with the number of variables. For flipping tails, the variables are very few. We need a coin 2 sides and we need one of them to be tails.

As I defined above, it's very important in any example of flipping coins to note that a coin has three sides, not two. One of those three sides is called 'edge,' so we need it to have at least one side called tails.

For life, the variables are too many and we aren't certain which ones are required to list the positives we need, just the negatives that preclude life.

We're not really sure what the negatives that preclude life are, either, aside from that life not based on carbon is unlikely due to the adaptability of carbon chemistry not being mirrored elsewhere.

It would be like saying, "We're not certain what we need to flip tails, other than it seems to be possible with coins that aren't those 2 headed kind."

But we are certain what we need to be able to flip tails, we need a coin with at least one side called tails which is able to be placed with that side facing upwards. In much the same way, in order to determine life in any form can exist on a planet, we must located either remains or living creatures, then demonstrate they are more adapted to this world than our own and are therefore more likely to have originated here.

But we're not assuming ANY other concrete things do exist.

Any things other than what?

Because it is the absence of possible in a negative direction.
Same as certain is the absence of possible in a positive direction.

Yes, but the absence of a middle term is characterised by the fact that it only excludes the middle and not either end. For example, 'nonzero' allows for any number, positive or negative, that is not zero. 'Not maybe' allows for a yes or no answer but no middle ground. 'Not possible' is only negative, which demonstrates possible is a positive term, not a neutral one.

2 headed coin, impossible to flip tails, certain to flip heads.

Actually, I carefully excluded that as an example because it isn't true according to my above definition of a coin as a three sided object. It's possible for the coin to land on its third side, the edge, which is neither heads or tails. There is no possible state for a coin to be in which guarantees you will flip one of the two faces, that's why the only certainty is if you have a coin with all faces not called heads you will be unable to flip heads.

Well, that's YOUR list, not exactly something with general consent.

Yes, only the scientific community would agree that strong direct evidence would be necessary before declaring aliens existed or using them as a premise to evaluate evidence, that's hardly anyone.

1. When there is no known natural process that produces the result, we suspect that it is not just an appearance.

Not sufficient. When there is no known natural process that can produce the result and another process has been adequately demonstrated to be able to be the cause of these particular objects, then we can suspect it is not just an appearence.

It is interesting to note with the context of the thread being ID etc. that evolution is a theory of a natural process based on observations, not an actual natural process observed.

No, it's been observed too. That's one of the older creationist claims and it's not true. Microevolution has been observed directly, and speciation has been observed, meaning so has macroevolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA230.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

More to the point, you want a single observation to demonstrate that an item with unknown properties exists. Evolutionary theory was constructed by determining a pattern within a massive number of pieces of evidence, and then thoroughly testing the mechanisms thought to be responsible for this pattern. These mechanisms have not only passed rigorous testing, they have also predicted later discoveries; for example, bacteria able to digest industrial waste and evolved immunity to antibiotics.

You, on the other hand, are arguing against any testing of your mechanism, 'intelligent aliens,' and have not gathered any evidence that would allow it to be evaluated anyway. Your only evidence for your pre-ordained conclusion of 'design' is a bunch of ambiguous objects you refuse to accept any other explanation for. Until you can locate and evaluate a 'designer' and test if it is able to design and produce the items or pass the design to something that could, you don't have a theory.

Given the vigor that you resist labelling an object as designed based on observations, I'm surprised you are not more skeptical of evolution, but that's a different discussion.

I resist it because you are unable to demonstrate anything existed that was able to design it, meaning you have no proof above that the object is similar to things humans have designed.

2. ??? Cars are defintely not created by rote behaviour, they are designed and built by a very complex intelligent system.

No, they're not, there's nothing intelligent about mass production itself; it's all about repetition of fixed mechanical operations. Cars are built by a semimoronic production line system that uses preprogrammed robots performing a series of repeated and simplistic route tasks. These machines can build a thousand cars without thinking and only require someone to supervise them in case they screw up.

We have demonstrated through our use of machines that incredible complexity can be created using simple programmed actions by unintelligent systems. We know that similar pre-programmed systems exist as instinctive behaviours in nature, and we have as yet seen no upper limit to how complex the output of such a system could potentially become. Therefore, we must rule out route behaviour by unintelligent life before we can get near intelligent life as a valid origin.

Who could possibly come across a fully automated car assembly plant with a lot full of cars and not know natural processes could not accomplish this.

That's not the point. The point is that the automation itself is not intelligent and yet can produce enormous complexity. Route behaviour by unintelligent animals is essentially automated production; like the robotic systems of a production line, termites instinctively know how to build a termite mound.

There are many good reasons for science to continue pursuing the theory of evolution and there are many flaws in the theory of ID

Such as the fact that it's absolutely worthless, you mean?

but when you overstate the case, such as with the car assembly example, you stop making the issue about science and begin to make it about "them being wrong"

ID is wrong, it's not science at all; it's religion dressed up as science to get it into schools, and even its strongest supporters openly (http://atheism.about.com/b/a/231021.htm) admit (http://atheism.about.com/b/a/238724.htm) to this.

The assembly line example has been misinterpreted by yourself; an assembly line demonstrates that complex results can be achieved by a system which is not in itself intelligent. We know such systems can evolve, and with no known maximum to the complexity of the objects they can produce, such an evolved system of route creation rather than design would have to be ruled out as a source, given it could create apparently manufactured items without design.

3. That would add strength to the idea, but is not a requirement.

It is a requirement. Until the designer is shown to be able to exist there is no substance to the premise that it can, and thus the premise is invalid. You cannot make an assumption something exists just because something is not known to be impossible.

4. I don't know what 4 is doing there at all. We don't have to understand how gravity works to know that it works. Much like 3, this would strengthen any position, but it is certainly not required.

It is required to explain items that exist that you have a working explaination for how those items were created. You cannot declare an unknown to have created them if you have no ability to explain how, that's why nobody takes theories that aliens built Stonehenge or the Pyramids seriously.

Interesting and relavent article. They fail to mention, and even refute without example, that none of their examples are new information.

'Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting.'

Oh look, it's you. Could you explain how, without any additional information, bacteria have evolved to digest chemical synthetics like nylon that didn't even exist until recently?

Simply not true. If the fossil record and biology suggest that things were created, rather than morphing

'Morphing?' Um...Nobody suggests anything 'morphed.' This is evolution, not Power Rangers.

then the data would lend itself to creationism.

But it doesn't. Also, it wouldn't lend itself to any particular form of creationism, let alone Biblical creationism. Can you give me a set of evidence that would disprove creationism? Be careful, since you would have to show me something an omnipotent God could not have done.

Impossible, isn't it?

It is just as testable as evolution. To say otherwise is to decieve yourself and others.

It is impossible to test the theory's mechanism because it is impossible to predict the actions of an inscrutable omnipotent God; for example, a fossil record could be created in an instant by such a creature, which is why the geological column is not taken as disproof of Young-Earth Creationism. Any attempts to demonstrate support for creationism are bracketed into two groups:

1. Attacks on evolution: these assume that if evolution is shown to be false, Biblical creationism must be true. This is a false dilemma; there are thousands of other origin myths with equal proof status to Biblical creationism, including Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, Last Thursdayism and every ancient religion ever to exist.

2. Attempts to demonstrate parts of the Bible as factual. This tends to lead to inference that the entire Bible must be factual, so the creation myth within it must be true. This is clearly nonsense, since other parts of the Bible are known not to be factual, such as the destruction of the city of Ai and claims the Israelite tribal army numbered in the millions.

There is no way to disprove Creationism because the mechanism can do anything, including tricks like creating things with apparent age or creating bones of apparently ancient creatures. It is thus worthless as a scientific theory and impossible to test.

Evolution in the sense of new kinds of animals has never been observed. It is pure hypothesis.

Garbage. Speciation has been observed, and all types of grouping above speciation have the precise same mechanism over longer periods of time. There is no known magical barrier that stops it once an animal gets too 'different.'

Also, I see you're back to the creationist term 'kind' instead of any scientific term. 'Kind' is a meaningless term taken directly from the Bible which creationists define as anything between 'species' and 'kingdom' depending on what they're arguing against.

This is fine and as it should be - I have no problem with that. Take that and state that it is the only hypothesis cheapens science.

It's one of the most well-proven theories in all of science, being backed up by findings in the fields of geology, physics, chemistry, biology, paleontology and cosmology. It is the cornerstone of our understanding of biology. To relegate it to the status of 'hypothesis' is simple ignorance.

Cambrian explosion.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/chimeras.asp

This one, you mean? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

Mutations are highly debatable in terms of new kinds of creatures

Again with 'kinds?' We've seen speciation, which proves macroevolution occurs. Unless creationism can demonstrate an obstacle to it occurring a lot over time, hiding behind the meaningless unscientific term 'kind' isn't going to help.

I go there all the time. A lot of their stuff is good and helps me look at both sides of the issue. However, they have an agenda and curiously state things as fact when it is just a hypothesis or possibility.

That would be because it's one of the most well-tested theories in all of science and is not just a hypothesis.

I suggest you look at Answersingenesis.org to explore the creation side of the argument (they, of course, have an agenda as well).

I have. It's full of ignorance disguised as knowledge. And much ignoring of Proverbs 4:7 since none of them bother to understand evolution before they attack it.

Thankyou for your comments. Sickle-cell anaemia falls into my categories. Its a basepair substitution, resulting in a hydrophobic area on the globin protein (of the haemoglobin molecule). In the aqueous red blood cell, this makes the haemoglobin connect to other Hb molecules, forming sticky fibrous strands. The RBCs become sickle-shaped, are destroyed by spleen, can't transport oxygen, and clog blood vessels; eventually the sufferer dies. Sickle-cell anaemia may protect from malaria, but seeing as you're more likely to die from having the sickle-cell anaemia gene than from contracting malaria, is probably not going to help the human race much. Not a good example of a helpful mutation. In fact, that is a very good example of a bad mutation.And yes, you may sit in your objective ivory tower and INSIST that it is beneficial, but you can't have your cake and eat it. The mutation in the genotype affects the phenotype of the organism as a whole, and that fact is inescapable. The beneficial effects of Sickle-cell anaemia mutation are far outweighed by the harmful effects. Give me malaria anyday. At least I can get rid of that.
Kleinfelter's Syndrome is not a gain of information. If you photocopy a page from a book, have you gained anything? If I copy a chromosome, what have I gained? Kleinfelter's is where the X chromosome is repeated in males, ie, XXXY. Its just as if the X chromosome got photocopied. NOT new information, just more copies of the same stufF. I apologize, I spoke without checking my book. Now I know, and it is not any sort of gain of information. Just as if havibg two copies of a textbook doesn't give anymore information than one copy of the textbook.
I suggest that you please read some recent research. 1) when I was talking about the DNA I assumed that you and I were only talking about the part that codes for protein. 2) That 85% of "useless" DNA is not at all useless, underscored by the fact that you wouldn't exist without it. The introns have buffer DNA (to soak up mutations gained in duplication), markers required for transcription, splicepoints, attachments for the histone molecules that DNA wraps around, and numerous other "uses".
Something about bacteria who become resistant to antibiotics and/or can digest nylon. They had the information in their genome in the 1st place. The bacteria who didn't express the gene died off, and the ones who did survived. No gain of information. Like dogs. Take some medium-length haired mongrel dogs. Send them to a (hot) desert. The dogs have puppies, some long-haired, some short-haired, some medium. The long haired ones die (heat-stroke etc,) the short-haired ones survive. Carry on having puppies, and eventually you only get short-haired puppies. No new information has been gained, only the information for long-hair has been lost (note, this won't work in thorough-bred dogs, due to the massive amount of selection for specific genes that has gone on). If bacteria can eat nylon, it means the ones that couldn't eat nylon have died off, and the ones that could survived. Natural selection is NOT evolution, is not a gain of information, and it's funny how Darwin observed natural selection, but not evolution, and made a fatal mistake of equating the two. The theory of evolution is based on a flaw, and humans have narrowed the possibilities of evolution occuring down to the unlikely event of beneficial mutations. I am not convinced, even after 4 years of (biased evolution-theory-based) university physiology/genetics/anatomy/biochem, and now medicine, that a mistake, an error (or rather, lots of them) is the reason for apes turning into rational, moral, aspiring, intelligent (though with some that's debatable :D ), inquisitive, scientific, objective human beings.
And now can someone explain to me how on earth (or Mars) that RNA appeared in a chemical soup, and made some DNA, which then was transcribed to make the molecular machinery for transcription :confused: . The chances of all those things coming together (ie, somehow phospholipids were "formed" in an aqueous environment, made a micelle, and just so happened to wrap around that DNA that transcribes its own transcription machinery, outside of a cell, with a whole pile of basepairs just hanging around), the chances of this happening are far less than me looking for and finding (in my lifetime) one particular molecule among the [10 to the 80th power] molecules in the universe. Go figure it out.

The previous post was mainly to GMC Military Arms dude (hope you're having a nice day!). Let me say something on bacteria, mammals, mutations, and evolution. Bacteria have very small genomes (circular DNA) with no introns (sorry, introns are the segments so-called useless DNA between the exons (coding DNA)). Therefore bacteria are heavily affected by almost every mutation. In multicellular animals, The more complex they get, the more complex the DNA (chromosomal DNA) (to an extent: some nematodes (worms) have more DNA than some mammals), and more introns. Thus mutations have a smaller and smaller chance of affecting the phenotype of the animal. When you get to reptiles, birds, insects, crustaceans etc, the animal is so complex that mutations either have no effect (in the introns- though this still may affect DNA machinery as researchers are now finding out) or are harmful to the animal. The possibility of the mutation being beneficial decreases inversly to the complexity of the animal, until, when you get to humans, the chance of beneficial mutations occuring is so close to zero it's unlikely to happen in a billion billion years. Please tell about a beneficial mutation anywhere! In anything bigger than a bacteria! Because somewhere in our supposed evolutionary history we must have made a step from bacteria to multicelled complex animals.

Thankyou for your comments. Sickle-cell anaemia falls into my categories. <snip> Sickle-cell anaemia may protect from malaria, but seeing as you're more likely to die from having the sickle-cell anaemia gene than from contracting malaria, is probably not going to help the human race much. Not a good example of a helpful mutation.

Wrong. It's a beneficial mutation because in areas with very high rates of malaria it allows humans to live long enough to reproduce. This means that in areas with high malaria counts, sickle-cell anaema is beneficial because it increases the liklihood of the organism affected by it passing on its DNA.

The value judgement you place on it being 'bad' because it eventually kills people [with the heterozygous version they can live to around 40, whereas the vast majority of malaria deaths are of children aged 5 and under] doesn't mean it isn't beneficial from the point of view of reproduction in an area with a high rate of malaria. Quit moving the goalposts, a 'beneficial' mutation is one that confers a selective advantage.

In fact, that is a very good example of a bad mutation.And yes, you may sit in your objective ivory tower and INSIST that it is beneficial, but you can't have your cake and eat it.

It's reproductively beneficial because sufferers survive until adulthood, whereas in high malaria rate areas they would normally die as children. That is a benefit in that particular environment, even though it is not a benefit in different environments like developed countries where malaria is not as severe a threat. You are trying to have your cake and eat it by demanding a mutation not just provide a selective advantage, but make the organism's life better across the board with no drawbacks of any kind. That is not what a beneficial mutation is.

Sickle-cell anaemia is an excellent example of how a mutation seen as 'bad' in one environment is advantageous in another, in fact. It is a beneficial mutation in that environment; this is borne out by the massively higher rates of its appearence in areas where malaria is common.

The beneficial effects of Sickle-cell anaemia mutation are far outweighed by the harmful effects. Give me malaria anyday. At least I can get rid of that.

And if you can't get rid of it [which you couldn't until fairly recently], sickle-cell anaemia would allow you to survive long enough to reproduce. You would pass on your DNA rather than dying. It therefore gave you an advantage over a non-sufferer, and was therefore a beneficial mutation.

Kleinfelter's Syndrome is not a gain of information. If you photocopy a page from a book, have you gained anything? If I copy a chromosome, what have I gained?

A chromosome. You just answered yourself there. If you photocopy a page from a book and add it to the book, you have gained a page. Define 'information' to continue; there is definately more information in the book, even though some of it is repetition of existing information.

I suggest that you please read some recent research. 1) when I was talking about the DNA I assumed that you and I were only talking about the part that codes for protein. 2) That 85% of "useless" DNA is not at all useless, underscored by the fact that you wouldn't exist without it.

It is useless. It is simply bulk mass that needn't be DNA at all. If you looked at a car and found 85% of the components were doing absolutely nothing and each had 'please ignore' stamped on them in several places, would you assume you were looking at a well-designed car?

The introns have buffer DNA (to soak up mutations gained in duplication)

...Which are useless, given the mutations are in no way guaranteed to affect those portions. The buffer DNA is the very definition of junk, since a longer DNA strand increases the liklihood of duplication errors by requiring more duplication in the first place.

markers required for transcription

Which tell the transcription process 'this part of the DNA is useless.' Yay, they have little markers on to tell the transcripting enzymes to ignore them. How...Pointless. Why not just not have them there in the first place?

splicepoints, attachments for the histone molecules that DNA wraps around, and numerous other "uses".

None of which require the remainder which is just junk to be present as DNA, you'll note. They are vestigial because they have lost their original function of being coding instructions, and are now just added length on the strand with some duplication of functions found elsewhere. We know from DNA in other organisms that this buffer DNA is not essential. Some of the DNA is not junk, but a very large percentage is. This is known because it can be spliced at random without apparent effect on the organism.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB130.html

Something about bacteria who become resistant to antibiotics and/or can digest nylon. They had the information in their genome in the 1st place.

They had the information to digest nylon, a man-made synthetic that didn't even exist until this century? Um, right. How would they have come upon that 'information,' exactly? Guessed?

The bacteria who didn't express the gene died off, and the ones who did survived. No gain of information.

Define 'information' before continuing, please. By any rational definition of the term, biology has shown mutations to be capable of adding it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

If bacteria can eat nylon, it means the ones that couldn't eat nylon have died off, and the ones that could survived.

Except that they didn't. The bacteria that eat nylon are a specialised form of an already existing bacteria without that ability; their mutation allowed them to thrive in areas where normal bacteria could not.

Natural selection is NOT evolution, is not a gain of information, and it's funny how Darwin observed natural selection, but not evolution, and made a fatal mistake of equating the two. The theory of evolution is based on a flaw, and humans have narrowed the possibilities of evolution occuring down to the unlikely event of beneficial mutations.

So unlikely it happens all the time, yes.

The chances of all those things coming together (ie, somehow phospholipids were "formed" in an aqueous environment, made a micelle, and just so happened to wrap around that DNA that transcribes its own transcription machinery, outside of a cell, with a whole pile of basepairs just hanging around), the chances of this happening are far less than me looking for and finding (in my lifetime) one particular molecule among the [10 to the 80th power] molecules in the universe. Go figure it out.

That's because it never happened. The first self-replicators were probably precursors to RNA, which has been shown to self-replicate without the aid of proteins. You are imagining the first cell must have worked exactly like a modern cell, which is nonsense. It's a simple Appeal to Ignorance fallacy to claim that you can't see how it happened, so it couldn't have.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html

Also, if you've done so much work on biochemistry you should know that the creationist odds calculations are nonsense because chemical reactions are not random.

Oh look, it's you. Could you explain how, without any additional information, bacteria have evolved to digest chemical synthetics like nylon that didn't even exist until recently?

The same way bacteria are tolerant of modern antibiotics when there were none around during the lives of the bacterium.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

'Morphing?' Um...Nobody suggests anything 'morphed.' This is evolution, not Power Rangers.

Equating new types of animals coming from others is morphing. If is sounds like fiction to you... nevermind.

But it doesn't. Also, it wouldn't lend itself to any particular form of creationism, let alone Biblical creationism. Can you give me a set of evidence that would disprove creationism? Be careful, since you would have to show me something an omnipotent God could not have done.

Please explain to me how to disprove evolution of a new type of animal when it has never been observed. Be careful, since you would have to show me something nature and billions of years could not have done.

-snip -
Garbage.

Go for Class or Order. A horse is a horse, of course.

It's one of the most well-proven theories in all of science

Its one of the most often stated theories in all of science and much of it is supposition.

This one, you mean? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

Yep. Jellyfish, Worms and microscopic stuff. Then arthropods, echinoderms, and chordates. All of a sudden (unless of course you just add more time... *sigh*)
I have. It's full of ignorance disguised as knowledge. And much ignoring of Proverbs 4:7 since none of them bother to understand evolution before they attack it.

You would serve yourself well by inspecting both sides. Believing talkorigin.org is the gospel is your choice. I don't think answersingen has all accurate information, either. I have my faith, and it appears that you have yours.

To each other, what are they?

Is Intelligent Design thinly deguised Creationalism or what?

Yes. ID says the life is too complex to have been the result of trillions of random evolutions, so it must be therefore created by an "intelligent" designer. However, any "intelligent" designer would have designed an ecology were people don't suffer from genetic abnormalities or chronic ailments.

Funnily enough, they never name the "intelligent' designer or even try to argue that an "intelligent" designer exists. In order for ID to be considered remotely scientific, it would require evidence supporting both the existence of an "intelligent" designer and evidence supporting that life on earth was the product of his/her/its design. It is not scientific to backhandedly assume, in the face of evidence to the contrary, that life must be intelligently designed.

The same way bacteria are tolerant of modern antibiotics when there were none around during the lives of the bacterium.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

Which essentially says 'Science can't currently say exactly how this happened, so it must have been God.' Classic appeal to ignorance fallacy.

Equating new types of animals coming from others is morphing. If is sounds like fiction to you... nevermind.

No, it's evolution. Morphing is when it happens in the animal's own lifetime, as with catepillars to moths.

Please explain to me how to disprove evolution of a new type of animal when it has never been observed. Be careful, since you would have to show me something nature and billions of years could not have done.

Easily. If one located a population of animals containing qualities from multiple unrelated species [a centaur or Manticore, for example], which had come about with no ancestry, or was observed being 'created,' with no evidence of deliberate tampering, this would be beyond evolution's ability to explain. If it was found there was a barrier of some kind to evolution above the species level that prevented change exceeding a certain amount, then evolution could not fully explain life and would require additional mechanisms.

Evolution has always been falsifiable. The fact that it is correct means it's rather difficult to actually do so.

Go for Class or Order. A horse is a horse, of course.

There's no known obstacle that stops evolution at that stage. Once you're above species, anything else is just a lot more macroevolution.

Its one of the most often stated theories in all of science and much of it is supposition.

Nope. It's mostly tested and the central mechanisms are well known and have been tested repeatedly.

Yep. Jellyfish, Worms and microscopic stuff. Then arthropods, echinoderms, and chordates. All of a sudden (unless of course you just add more time... *sigh*)

Yes, all of a sudden if you're a geologist is fourty million years, though. The Cambrian Explosion is well explained by evolution and isn't the amazing surprise Creationists like to pretend it is.

You would serve yourself well by inspecting both sides. Believing talkorigin.org is the gospel is your choice.

That would be because it can back up its claims with research papers and facts, rather than appeals to ignorance and flimsy excuses.

We cannot assume something is true without any proof. You are confusing the normal definition of 'assumption' [which is basically 'a guess'] with the scientific meaning, which is 'something proven to the point it is able to be regarded as true.' Scientific theories only assume premises to be true when there is significant evidence of their truth; they don't just declare something not known to be true is true as a premise like your examples.

Scientific theories do it all the time.
If we had to prove everything was true first, we'd never have any theories.

String theory (since it has popped up here a few times) makes assumptions that no one can know to be true or prove, then relies on the math to fit the observations, and when it runs into trouble, it makes the assumption that there are more dimensions, and continues on.


In both, you should examine the coin carefully first and state the initial assumption as 'to the best of our knowledge, it is true that we have a coin of this type.' This destroys your example.

By your definition of the term, the second assumption that something is 'possible' only means that it is 'not proven to be impossible.' Since this is the resting state of everything with no conclusive proof or disproof, such an assumption is worthless and adds nothing; an assumption is supposed to be something you are able to assume the truth or falsity of to define a theory, not just an 'I don't know.'



We don't. We examine the coin to determine if that is true. We cannot assume what the coin is before we bother to examine it, that's nonsense.



Firstly, that's a hypothesis, not an assumption.

Secondly, wrong order. Because we first analysed the coin to determine that there was a side called tails, and that the coin was able to be placed with this side facing upwards, we can now state this hypothesis for this experiment: that barring any unknowns, the coin should be capable of landing with the side called tails facing upwards.



We should then repeat the experiment until we have at least one flip of tails to confirm our hypothesis that the coin is able to land tail-side-up from being flipped. If after many tests it does not ever flip tails, we should examine the coin again to determine if some other factor is affecting the result, since we know a state is capable of existing where the coin has the tail-side up, and our hypothesis is that it is able to land in this state after being flipped.

So, what we actually should have is this:

1. Based on our examination of the coin, we know it has three sides, called heads, tails, and edge. We will assume it has no additional sides which are invisible or otherwise undetectable, and we will assume it is unable to change its sides, barring direct observation of either phenomenon.
2. We known that coin can be placed with the head side down and tail side up, and will not suddenly flip over or otherwise alter itself. We therefore know a state called 'tails' is possible for this coin.
3. We have not observed the coin at any point not having a side called tails, so barring future observations, we will state our first assumption: that this coin has a side called tails and is able to come to rest with this side facing upwards.
4. We know from past flips of other coins that the coin is able to land on any of three sides, with the third much less frequent than either of the others. We have tested this coin and shown these three positions are also able to exist with this coin, by placing it on a surface and observing it does not attempt to alter its position or otherwise change to another configuration. We will therefore make our hypothesis: that when we flip this coin, it will be capable of coming to rest with the side called tails facing upwards.
5. For purposes of adequate trials, we will flip the coin 1,000 times and record the results, monitoring any environmental irregularities that may influence the results such as air temperature, and we will record these values and graph them against the flips later. We will use a mechanical device to flip each coin with equal force and height, to ensure a fair test.
6. We will also likewise flip a coin already known to be able to land on tails as a control to ensure that nothing is influencing the coin, as we will assume such a factor would also influence the second coin.

That is adequate testing; it is fair, thorough, bases its hypothesis on known premises, is repeatable, and includes a control item. You are stating your hypothesis ['tails is possible'] as an assumption, which isn't correct. You have the whole process backwards; we can't assume that the coin is regular before we even bother to examine it, and we can't assume an untested assumption is true, so we can't use it.


I'm not sure you're aware that no one is making a theory about coin flipping for you to begin investigating.
Coin flipping is a placeholder for the purposes of discussion only. You will not typically have the luxury of fully examing 'the coin' and such a thorough knowledge of all factors.


Which is odd, since all planets will either have or not have native life. This is like failing to assume that a yes / no question will have the answer as either yes or no.


Wow, we just keep missing each other's intent.
I meant, we neither assume that all planets have life nor do we assume that all planets do not have native life.
This was in response to your example of Mercury somehow proving that all planets do not have native life.



But we are certain what we need to be able to flip tails, we need a coin with at least one side called tails which is able to be placed with that side facing upwards. In much the same way, in order to determine life in any form can exist on a planet, we must located either remains or living creatures...


No.
Essentially, you just said that in order flip tails, we need to flip tails.
Truism much?
If we find remains or living creatures, we are no longer looking for life, we are no longer considering it possible or impossible, we have found evidence and know it to be True.


Any things other than what?


? There is no "than what".


No, they're not, there's nothing intelligent about mass production itself; it's all about repetition of fixed mechanical operations. Cars are built by a semimoronic production line system that uses preprogrammed robots performing a series of repeated and simplistic route tasks. These machines can build a thousand cars without thinking and only require someone to supervise them in case they screw up.

We have demonstrated through our use of machines that incredible complexity can be created using simple programmed actions by unintelligent systems. We know that similar pre-programmed systems exist as instinctive behaviours in nature, and we have as yet seen no upper limit to how complex the output of such a system could potentially become. Therefore, we must rule out route behaviour by unintelligent life before we can get near intelligent life as a valid origin.


None of the automation process is possible without excessive amounts of intelligence and design going into it's construction, programming and maintenance.
It is a very clear example of complexity from intelligent (human) design and is NOT complexity from rote unintelligent repitition.


That's not the point. The point is that the automation itself is not intelligent and yet can produce enormous complexity. Route behaviour by unintelligent animals is essentially automated production; like the robotic systems of a production line, termites instinctively know how to build a termite mound.


It doesn't matter if the automation is intelligent or not.

Similarly, the paint brush is NOT intelligent, it's just the tool by which intelligence accomplishes it's desire, same with an automated plant.


The assembly line example has been misinterpreted by yourself; an assembly line demonstrates that complex results can be achieved by a system which is not in itself intelligent. We know such systems can evolve,

I'm not the one misinterpreting the assembly line.
You can't have an assembly line built without intelligence, they do not just evolve and we have no evidence that they do.


You cannot declare an unknown to have created them if you have no ability to explain how, that's why nobody takes theories that aliens built Stonehenge or the Pyramids seriously.

Yet, no one doubts that they were built by some intelligence.

Scientific theories do it all the time.
If we had to prove everything was true first, we'd never have any theories.

Oh please. By now you should know how the scientific method works - it has been explained enough times already. Stop pretending to be ignorant.

String theory (since it has popped up here a few times) makes assumptions that no one can know to be true or prove, then relies on the math to fit the observations, and when it runs into trouble, it makes the assumption that there are more dimensions, and continues on.

The theory is adapted to fit the observations, yes. And if the observations would be found impossible to be fitted into the main concept of the theory the theory would be dropped.
What is the problem ?

Though I do not insist I.D. be taught in the schools, it would be nice if Darwins' theory of evolution would be restored to it's proper place as a theory, nothing more and nothing less, instead of the carved in granite "fact" that you all seem to regard it as, and that public schools universally misrepresent it as. It is a theory. Look it up. It is essentially unproven, and will never be able to be proven. Remember Piltdown Man? And how everyone rushed to embrace that farce, merely because it backed what they wished to have established as scientific "fact"? YOU might regard it as such. Most scientists today may even regard it as such. It. Is. A. Theory.

All the hoo-hah surrounding this issue makes a very strong case for Ann Coulter's theory (note I said theory) that Darwinism is the liberals belief system.

Oh please. By now you should know how the scientific method works - it has been explained enough times already. Stop pretending to be ignorant.



By now? I guess so, I have a degree in science, I'm at a minimum competent and familiar with the scientific method.
But at no time did I ever learn that in order to have a theory, we must prove the theory is true FIRST. Bit of a Catch-22 there, if we know something is true, we don't need to theorise, if we need to theorise, we do so without knowing for certain whether our theory is true until we can try it out.


The theory is adapted to fit the observations, yes. And if the observations would be found impossible to be fitted into the main concept of the theory the theory would be dropped.
What is the problem ?

Whoa there cowboy.
I'm not saying anything is a problem there. I'm fine with it.
I'm pointing out that it is inconsistent witht the view that GMC is presenting to argue with me.

*snip typical ignorance of scientific theory*

It. Is. A. Theory.

Now what makes it a theory? Answer that correctly and you get a cookie.

All the hoo-hah surrounding this issue makes a very strong case for Ann Coulter's theory (note I said theory) that Darwinism is the liberals belief system.

So a Coulter rambling = a Scientific Theory? If you answer the first correctly, you'll see what an ignorant statement that is.

The best thing about the ID vs evolution arguement is that any ID supporter who learns enough about evolution to genuinely debunk it will have to change sides.

But at no time did I ever learn that in order to have a theory, we must prove the theory is true FIRST. Bit of a Catch-22 there, if we know something is true, we don't need to theorise, if we need to theorise, we do so without knowing for certain whether our theory is true until we can try it out.

The scientific method is based on assuming a hypothesis is wrong and trying to prove that.

The scientific method is based on assuming a hypothesis is wrong and trying to prove that.


What an odd choice of phrasing.
I think you're talking about falsifiability which is certainly part of the scientific method, but science isn't about trying to come up with wrong hypothesis and proving them wrong. If it was, wow, would doing science ever be easy.

To each other, what are they?

Is Intelligent Design thinly deguised Creationalism or what?

All I can say dude is that in this house we call it ignorant design.

Scientific theories do it all the time.
If we had to prove everything was true first, we'd never have any theories.

You have to prove all the theories' assumptions are true. Most scientific theories assume other, more well-grounded theories are true, such as the laws of thermodynamics. They don't assume unknown values to be true just because it's a more conveniant way of getting to a pre-ordained conclusion.

String theory (since it has popped up here a few times) makes assumptions that no one can know to be true or prove, then relies on the math to fit the observations, and when it runs into trouble, it makes the assumption that there are more dimensions, and continues on.

Which is why it is theoretical science, not 'hard' science. Theoretical science deals in terms of mathematical rather than physical proof, and all it can do is determine a given hypothesis is not mathematically impossible. It's a good starting point, but you won't see String Theory regarded as hard science if it cannot be tested.

I'm not sure you're aware that no one is making a theory about coin flipping for you to begin investigating.

You completely miss the point, as ever. The point was that the example given was a proper fair test for the circumstances given, and that your test, which went so far as to quote its hypothesis as an assumption, was not.

Coin flipping is a placeholder for the purposes of discussion only. You will not typically have the luxury of fully examing 'the coin' and such a thorough knowledge of all factors.

We must examine the coin to be able to come up with any hypothesis about what it will do. This is the entire point you're missing and the reason that mysterious entities aren't allowed in scientific theories. If it's impossible to examine what's being studied, you cannot generate any hypothesis to test. This is why we need some actual evidence of 'alien life' before we can form a testable hypothesis for how that life may have created these objects, assuming no other explanation has presented itself in the meantime.

Because, you know, we're not out of the woods when we find life.

Let's have an example of a test after we find life. The life we find is a small shrew-like creature. Let's imagine the objects we found, on closer inspection, were made of three easily-seperated parts; a middle section that clips into a lower section and screws into a top section. We still don't know how it was made or if this creature made it, but since the creature can pick up and move the three sections, we come up with the hypothesis that if the creature created the object, it should be capable of putting the three dismantled parts together. However, since we don't know what other factors may be involved, we also add in another test; we place a dog in similar conditions with the three parts. We know dogs don't assemble tools, so if the dog can assemble the tool, something else must be going on.

Ok, first go, the alien puts the thing together. Yay, you cry, absolute proof of alien design. Only problem is on the first try, so does the dog.

Oh dear.

This is why we can't jump to our favourite conclusion with no evidence at all of its truth; even if we can show that a creature from this planet is able to put the object together, we have to show that some additional force isn't at work through things like the control test with the dog.

Even if we show the creature puts the object together on its own, that only proves it can assemble the object once it has been made, not that it can made the three components or design the three components. You would have to demonstrate both of those things before you could declare this creature a 'designer,' and you would have to show even more than that to declare it intelligent.

When you don't even have a creature, your conclusion is supported purely by your desire for it to be true. You want to skip all the boring phases of gathering evidence and proofs and testing and barge right on to the conclusion, but you can't do that.

No.
Essentially, you just said that in order flip tails, we need to flip tails.
Truism much?

False. In order to know we are able to flip tails, we must be able to show the coin is actually capable of coming to rest with the side called tails facing upwards. We do not need to flip the coin at all to establish that, we only need to place it on a surface and observe it does not flip over by itself or otherwise alter itself to tails is not facing upwards.

If we find remains or living creatures, we are no longer looking for life, we are no longer considering it possible or impossible, we have found evidence and know it to be True.

Yes, but you are looking for life that designs objects, not life. In order to get anywhere near that, we must first demonstrate a state called life is capable of existing here. Also, 'life' is still not true, only the specific form we have found. All other forms are still 'may or may not be true' and will require additional proof.

You have tried to wind back to 'life,' but that's not what you need at all, you want a very specific form of it. To find out if any given form of it is that very specific form, we must first be able to analyse it.

None of the automation process is possible without excessive amounts of intelligence and design going into it's construction, programming and maintenance.

Um, the maintainance is relatively simple, actually, as is the construction; it's just route mechanical work that anyone with a short training course can do. You're trying to exaggerate the complexity of industrial equipment, here. People who install production lines are labourers, not PhDs.

It is a very clear example of complexity from intelligent (human) design and is NOT complexity from rote unintelligent repitition.

Correct. However, it is a clear equal once constructed to the route actions carried out by many insect species in building nests, and in some cases also in cultivating crops or farming other insects like aphids. In both cases, many individual unintelligent actions result in a complex whole not designed by any of those performing the actions.

It doesn't matter if the automation is intelligent or not.

Oh, it does. Route behaviour is essentially automation; a creature is hard-wired to do certain things in certain situations. It can grow to encompass very complex behaviours, and there is no known upper limit to how complex. Since we ourselves use automation to make enormously complex things, we know that a designed object can be produced by moronic route labour. Therefore, with no known upper limit to complexity of animal route behaviour, it is plausible that an apparently designed object could be created by highly developed route behaviour without intelligence.

And you would need to find some way to disprove this before you could arrive at your conclusion. Again, you can't just leap to whatever conclusion you think is best without bothering to test it against any other explanation.

I'm not the one misinterpreting the assembly line.
You can't have an assembly line built without intelligence, they do not just evolve and we have no evidence that they do.

Actually, we do. An ant or termite colony is a series of individuals each of which are specialised to do a given task in the creation of a greater whole; the queen lays eggs, the workers care for those eggs to make more workers, gather food, and construct the mound or anthill, and the soldiers are specialised to protect it. Some ants even cultivate fungus or tend to aphids, specifically to feed the colony. The colony is massively larger than any individual, and in the case of termites is also built surprisingly well, even including a ventilation system.

This is basically the same as a group of specialised, programmed machines organised into a greater whole to build a complex object. There is no know upper limit to how sophisticated the object they are organised to create could potentially become, all without a 'designer' at any stage.

Yet, no one doubts that they were built by some intelligence.

That's because we know they were. It sorta removes the whole 'doubt' bit.

Though I do not insist I.D. be taught in the schools, it would be nice if Darwins' theory of evolution would be restored to it's proper place as a theory, nothing more and nothing less, instead of the carved in granite "fact" that you all seem to regard it as, and that public schools universally misrepresent it as. It is a theory. Look it up. It is essentially unproven, and will never be able to be proven. Remember Piltdown Man? And how everyone rushed to embrace that farce, merely because it backed what they wished to have established as scientific "fact"? YOU might regard it as such. Most scientists today may even regard it as such. It. Is. A. Theory.

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Is this the definition of theory that you are basing your argument on? If it isn't it's back to the drawing board with you

Which essentially says 'Science can't currently say exactly how this happened, so it must have been God.' Classic appeal to ignorance fallacy.

You amaze me in you dilligent pursuit of ignorance. Did you not notice the 9 secular references at the bottom?

No, it's evolution. Morphing is when it happens in the animal's own lifetime, as with catepillars to moths.

"A distinct, readily observeable type of a given species. For example, within the species Colias occidentalis, there are both yellow and orange morphs."

Easily. If one located a population of animals containing qualities from multiple unrelated species [a centaur or Manticore, for example], which had come about with no ancestry, or was observed being 'created,' with no evidence of deliberate tampering, this would be beyond evolution's ability to explain. If it was found there was a barrier of some kind to evolution above the species level that prevented change exceeding a certain amount, then evolution could not fully explain life and would require additional mechanisms.

But there isn't. So to say its falsifiable is a joke. Again, you persist in asserting that evolution can account for you coming from some ape-like ancestor, and will keep believing that, without proof, until God shows you an animal emerging from a seed-pod.

Evolution has always been falsifiable. The fact that it is correct means it's rather difficult to actually do so.
There's no known obstacle that stops evolution at that stage. Once you're above species, anything else is just a lot more macroevolution.
Nope. It's mostly tested and the central mechanisms are well known and have been tested repeatedly.

You and I actually agree on the last part (only). Evolution is observed in the sense that DNA is marvelous and animals can adapt. Actually they adapt quite rapidly (no millions of years). They don't turn into other animals.

Yes, all of a sudden if you're a geologist is fourty million years, though. The Cambrian Explosion is well explained by evolution and isn't the amazing surprise Creationists like to pretend it is.

If all else fails, add more time, more chance, more gallaxies, whatever it takes to keep the POSSIBILITY of a naturalistic explanation possible. Go man, go.

That would be because it can back up its claims with research papers and facts, rather than appeals to ignorance and flimsy excuses.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp
A sampling of a few hundred PHD's that think evolution is flawed. You come across as a plebian drone for Darwinism.

You amaze me in you dilligent pursuit of ignorance. Did you not notice the 9 secular references at the bottom?

"A distinct, readily observeable type of a given species. For example, within the species Colias occidentalis, there are both yellow and orange morphs."

But there isn't. So to say its falsifiable is a joke. Again, you persist in asserting that evolution can account for you coming from some ape-like ancestor, and will keep believing that, without proof, until God shows you an animal emerging from a seed-pod.

You and I actually agree on the last part (only). Evolution is observed in the sense that DNA is marvelous and animals can adapt. Actually they adapt quite rapidly (no millions of years). They don't turn into other animals.

If all else fails, add more time, more chance, more gallaxies, whatever it takes to keep the POSSIBILITY of a naturalistic explanation possible. Go man, go.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp
A sampling of a few hundred PHD's that think evolution is flawed. You come across as a plebian drone for Darwinism.

One thing I would like to say here... You make a reference up here to believing stuff without proof. uh... isn't that the essence of ID, and all forms of religon? (I'm a Christian FYI). The simple fact is that it's profoundly obvious that creatures can and do adapt, forming new species. Proof? Look at dogs. Men bred dogs to look, act, and have attributes (enhanced smell, floppy ears, better hearing, size, etc.) This proves that evolution, as in the literal changing of species is possible. It's also fairly obvious that creatures who are ineffecient die out. (See all animals that became extinct before people came around) using these two facts as a basis, it should be fairly obvious that it is fully possible and even likely for evolution to be possible.

In addition to believing Darwinism, i also believe in creationism. God has unlimited time to sit back and watch what happens. It's fully possible that he created us as apes and let us evolve. God knew what would happen.

To the question: ID and creationism are basically the same. Note that all the proponents of ID are Christian...

You amaze me in you dilligent pursuit of ignorance. Did you not notice the 9 secular references at the bottom?

Who cares? Anyone can misquote a paper, that doesn't prove anything.

"A distinct, readily observeable type of a given species. For example, within the species Colias occidentalis, there are both yellow and orange morphs."

So nothing to do with evolution of new species, then. Thanks for disproving yourself for me. I'd pointed out 'metamophosis' can be shortened to 'morphing' in computer animation and popular use, and this is the only kind of 'morphing' you can have in biology. 'Morphing' still isn't the correct term for how new species arise via evolution, and you are still wrong.

But there isn't. So to say its falsifiable is a joke.

Wrong. There isn't, so to say it's false is a joke. The fact that there are testable conditions under which it could be falsified and the observations required to make it false are not observed suggests it is true. Creationism, on the other hand, has no conditions under which it could be falsified at all because there's nothing an omnipotent God would be unable to do.

You appear to be confusing 'falsifiable' with 'easily falsifiable.' The fact that the conditions required to falsify evolution are rather difficult to come by is largely because all the easier tests that would falsify it have already ruled in favour of it many times. That's why it's regarded as well-proven, remember?

Again, you persist in asserting that evolution can account for you coming from some ape-like ancestor, and will keep believing that, without proof, until God shows you an animal emerging from a seed-pod.

No, I'll keep saying it's true because it's backed up by physics, biology, chemistry, astrophysics, cosmology, geology and paleontology, is the foundation of our understanding of biology and is one of the most well-proven theories in all of science.

You and I actually agree on the last part (only). Evolution is observed in the sense that DNA is marvelous and animals can adapt. Actually they adapt quite rapidly (no millions of years). They don't turn into other animals.

So what stops them? We've seen new species arise [macroevolution], so what is there to stop the continued application of the same process eventually leading to far greater changes?

If all else fails, add more time, more chance, more gallaxies, whatever it takes to keep the POSSIBILITY of a naturalistic explanation possible. Go man, go.

If all else fails and geology says so, you mean?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp
A sampling of a few hundred PHD's that think evolution is flawed. You come across as a plebian drone for Darwinism.

Gosh, a 'few hundred' many of whom have degrees irrelevant to biology [aircraft engineer? Dentist?] and many more of whom don't have PhDs as you claim; the AiG list only requires 'a doctorate,' not a research doctorate. Indeed, the list only actually has one note of someone with a PhD, 'Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi.' Now compare this, to, say, Project Steve (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp) to see how worthless such a list is. Project Steve has 750 scientists, nearly all of them PhDs, who support evolution and only counts scientists called Steve.

AiG manages four 'Steves,' is wrong about Kelvin being a creationist, and is wrong about George Romanes being a creationist. It also includes numerous dubious entries: see here (http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie014.html) for a full listing. Though some of these have been amended since with 'old-earth compromiser,' they still list people like John William Dawson who said that evolution was not incompatible with design. For some reason, they also include scientists from before Darwin was born, which is as ridiculous as including scientists before Einstein who didn't believe in matter-energy equivalency.

It also lists Dr. Harold Slusher whos degrees are from Indiana Christian University and Columbia Pacific University, which are both diploma mills, lists Thomas Barnes who only has an honourary Sc.D [though he has a real MS in Physics], and lists Dr. Saami Shaibani, who is known for lying about being employed by a university (http://www.courttv.com/trials/novelist/092603_ctv.html). Hardly world-breaking stuff.

You have to prove all the theories' assumptions are true.

Really.
That would be interesting to see, especially since science doesn't actually prove things to be true.


Which is why it is theoretical science, not 'hard' science. Theoretical science deals in terms of mathematical rather than physical proof, and all it can do is determine a given hypothesis is not mathematically impossible. It's a good starting point, but you won't see String Theory regarded as hard science if it cannot be tested.


Regardless, String Theory is regarded as science. There is room for more in science than the overly narrow understanding you have been pushing throughout this thread.


You completely miss the point, as ever. The point was that the example given was a proper fair test for the circumstances given, and that your test, which went so far as to quote its hypothesis as an assumption, was not.


I'm not missing the point, I'm pointing out that you are a making a different point.

The coin flip is an analogy, it is not an actual set of circumstances being tested. Since the flipping of the coin is representing whether we find or do not find native life on a given planet, we do not have the luxury of re-flipping the same coin to study it. We can't re-visit the same planet expecting new results and the number of new 'coins' to flip that we have access to is relatively small.


Yes, but you are looking for life that designs objects, not life. In order to get anywhere near that, we must first demonstrate a state called life is capable of existing here. Also, 'life' is still not true, only the specific form we have found. All other forms are still 'may or may not be true' and will require additional proof.

You have tried to wind back to 'life,' but that's not what you need at all, you want a very specific form of it. To find out if any given form of it is that very specific form, we must first be able to analyse it.


I haven't tried to wind back to 'life' at all. I've attempted to meet you where you have insisted. Your goalposts are shifting all over the place though.
You began by saying in order for my assumption to be valid, I had to demonstrate that 'alien' life is even possible, then you moved the goal posts and said I had to demonstrate that 'alien' life is possible specifically on the planet in question, then it became that life exists on the planet in question and now you're upto finding that life, finding intelligent life and still you move the posts to finding the right intelligent life.


Um, the maintainance is relatively simple, actually, as is the construction; it's just route mechanical work that anyone with a short training course can do. You're trying to exaggerate the complexity of industrial equipment, here. People who install production lines are labourers, not PhDs.


Surely you're not saying that labourers are completely lacking intelligence??


Correct. However, it is a clear equal once constructed to the route actions carried out by many insect species in building nests, and in some cases also in cultivating crops or farming other insects like aphids. In both cases, many individual unintelligent actions result in a complex whole not designed by any of those performing the actions.


Since you NEED that caveat, once constructed and since the construction IS the design and evidence of intelligence, your point falls flat.


That's because we know they were. It sorta removes the whole 'doubt' bit.

And how do we know that? By the standards you seem to be espousing, we can't even say that Stonehenge was built and isn't some natural formation.

Really.
That would be interesting to see, especially since science doesn't actually prove things to be true.

I already defined 'truth' in the sense I'm using here, as 'proven beyond reasonable doubt.' Your tedious hair-splitting doesn't make your arguments any better.

Regardless, String Theory is regarded as science. There is room for more in science than the overly narrow understanding you have been pushing throughout this thread.

No, it is fringe science. It has mathematical proofs demonstrating it is not impossible, but until it generates physical proof it will not be regarded as a solid scientific theory. You are trying to provide an explanation for a tangiable, physical object, so you need to go far better than that.

I'm not missing the point, I'm pointing out that you are a making a different point.

No, you are missing the point.

The coin flip is an analogy, it is not an actual set of circumstances being tested. Since the flipping of the coin is representing whether we find or do not find native life on a given planet, we do not have the luxury of re-flipping the same coin to study it.

Really? Are you saying we can't have other scientists check our findings, visit the planet again ourselves and look more closely at it, or check for other species after finding one?

We can't re-visit the same planet expecting new results and the number of new 'coins' to flip that we have access to is relatively small.

We can re-visit the same planet expecting different results, actually. What if we missed the 'life' the first time, and it in fact was there? What if the 'life' the first time was the result of contamination and it really wasn't there? We would, in fact, be required to have independant validation of our findings anyway, which means multiple 'flips' are a given.

There is no way whatsoever that science would accept any incredible finding like alien life without multiple independant confirmations of the observation. Scientists have learned from hoaxes like Piltdown Man and are much more loathe to jump up and down at the first sign of something interesting.

I haven't tried to wind back to 'life' at all. I've attempted to meet you where you have insisted.

No, you haven't. You have tried to wind back from 'finding evidence of an intelligent alien designer' to attempts to prove life is 'possible' [your term] on other planets because it's possible on this one. The fact that you accuse me of shifting the goalposts is, frankly, priceless.

You began by saying in order for my assumption to be valid, I had to demonstrate that 'alien' life is even possible

You replied with a semantic argument using a different meaning of the word 'possible' than the one I required. You have to demonstrate aliens are certainly capable of existing before you can assume them as part of your theory. You must therefore test that hypothesis before you are allowed to assume it.

then you moved the goal posts and said I had to demonstrate that 'alien' life is possible specifically on the planet in question

Which you do, because 'life' is certainly possible on that planet, because we are on that planet and we are alive. I don't see what the problem with that is.

then it became that life exists on the planet in question and now you're upto finding that life, finding intelligent life

Once we find the life in question, your require that we prove it is intelligent, or it is still the wrong life to explain your objects.

and still you move the posts to finding the right intelligent life.

No, not moving the goalposts at all. What is being described here is the entire series of hypotheses you would have to test before you could come near the idea that alien life which is intelligent created and designed the objects we have before us. You are skipping several steps, not just one.

Our first hypothesis would be made after we discovered what we believed to be a living creature. After testing that it was, indeed, living, we could theorise that since we know the creature was found on this planet alive, if we can demonstrate it is better adapted to this planet than our own we could reasonably suppose that it is native to this planet.

We could collect supporting evidence, especially if we found a population of such creatures rather than an individual; were we to eventually demonstrate the creature is indeed more adapted to this environment than Earth's and we showed the creature itself was not an artifact or the result of sample contamination or a deliberate hoax, we could declare native life exists on this planet.

Following that, we would be able to examine how the creature interacts with the objects we found; if it seems to recognise them, we can observe how it reacts to them; we could, for example, dismantle the objects and see if it attempts to put them back together. If so, we could theorise that the creature is able to build the objects we found, and test this as outlined in my previous post.

Proving it could design the objects would be far trickier; we would have to gather observational or other evidence of the creature not only building the objects, but also refining their designs through more than simple trial and error; that, or show it is capable of making new things that don't resemble any of the objects we've found. We might then be able to theorise the creature is able to design things, and test that by seeing how it responds to tests of engineering ability; for example, building a small bridge out of objects unfamiliar to it.

To prove it was intelligent would require still more work; after all, there are computerised prototyping systems that can refine and test designs without being intelligent. That would probably stray more into the realms of philosophy, but tests of things like creativity and imagination have been formulated, and we could presumably figure out a way to administer them.

Once we've done all that, we could declare that because we now know a designer exists on this planet, the objects may have been designed, and test this hypothesis. Because we now have knowledge of the designer, we can evaluate if it designed the object. If the object does not match our designer's methodology, physiology, aptitute with material science and so on, we rule out that particular creature and start again.

The scientific method is called a method because it is methodical. There is no moving the goalposts here, each step of proving your leap in logic requires proof and testing of its own. The fact that you have skipped so many steps is your problem, not mine.

Surely you're not saying that labourers are completely lacking intelligence??

No. You're deliberately missing the point now, I see.

Since you NEED that caveat, once constructed and since the construction IS the design and evidence of intelligence, your point falls flat.

Wrong, it doesn't fall flat. We have a process that is known to be capable of producing complex behaviours, evolution, and an object that may be the result of complex behaviours. We must therefore demonstrate that the complex behaviours that created this object are not route-programmed reflexes by unintelligent creatures before we can get near the idea that the object was 'designed' by anything.

And how do we know that? By the standards you seem to be espousing, we can't even say that Stonehenge was built and isn't some natural formation.

Because we cannot demonstrate any natural means by which Stonehenge could have been constructed, and because historical record shows that Stonehenge is indeed a constructed object, and that humans were living in that area at the time; humans are known to be able to build things. Furthermore, because we know where the stones came from and we can demonstrate how they were transported. The fact that we're not sure precisely how Stonehenge was raised doesn't mean we know nothing about it.

Further, we go with the explanation requiring the least number of usable terms, the principle of Parsimony. Theorising that humans built Stonehenge is not directly refuted by any of the evidence and does not require adding unknowns like 'aliens' which we can't evaluate. You know, like you want to do.

I already defined 'truth' in the sense I'm using here, as 'proven beyond reasonable doubt.' Your tedious hair-splitting doesn't make your arguments any better.


I'm sorry, but your continual hair splitting of 'possible' into mulitple layers of meaning led me to believe you were attempting herculeon accuracy here. Your use of proving to be true seemed out of place in your dialogue.


No, it is fringe science. It has mathematical proofs demonstrating it is not impossible, but until it generates physical proof it will not be regarded as a solid scientific theory. You are trying to provide an explanation for a tangiable, physical object, so you need to go far better than that.


I just find it interesting that you make subsets of science to include theories you like.
Now we have hard science, theoretical science and fringe science.
You want to insist that I deal in some kind of tangible hard core science for this discussion but you pick and choose what topics to apply it to.


No, you are missing the point.


No, I'm not missing the point, I don't agree with the point you are making, which is a different point than I am talking about.


Really? Are you saying we can't have other scientists check our findings, visit the planet again ourselves and look more closely at it, or check for other species after finding one?


Of course I'm not saying that, but 'the coin is flipped'. Revisiting might prove we were wrong, but it won't re-flip the coin. Subsequent visit would be intuitively obvious, yet outside the scope of the thought experiment.

I really think though that you have either forgotten, or ignored from the start that this was a thought experiment.


No, you haven't. You have tried to wind back from 'finding evidence of an intelligent alien designer' to attempts to prove life is 'possible' [your term] on other planets because it's possible on this one. The fact that you accuse me of shifting the goalposts is, frankly, priceless.


The only reason I have wound back at all has been at your insistence.
You were telling me for several posts that I could not ASSUME that life was POSSIBLE on Skeletor and that I had to DEMONSTRATE that life is CERTAINLY POSSIBLE as opposed to MAY BE POSSIBLE and since then you have shifted the goalposts several times and now, in this post I'm quoting, you're saying that it is demonstrated that life is certainly possible on the planet in question.

Which you do, because 'life' is certainly possible on that planet, because we are on that planet and we are alive. I don't see what the problem with that is.


At one point, that is all you wanted me to demonstrate in order to make my initial assumption.


Once we find the life in question, your require that we prove it is intelligent, or it is still the wrong life to explain your objects.

I've repeatedly stated that I'm not concerned with finding the right life. We can hunt down the 'right' life after we have decided there must be one to look for.


No. You're deliberately missing the point now, I see.

Nope, just pointing out that you suddenly and without warning changed the definition of intelligent and began to use it to differentiate between labourers and Phds.


Wrong, it doesn't fall flat. We have a process that is known to be capable of producing complex behaviours, evolution, and an object that may be the result of complex behaviours. We must therefore demonstrate that the complex behaviours that created this object are not route-programmed reflexes by unintelligent creatures before we can get near the idea that the object was 'designed' by anything.


Regardless, your point with automated assembly lines falls flat.
There are no known assembly lines that are not the result of intelligence and obvious design.


Because we cannot demonstrate any natural means by which Stonehenge could have been constructed, and because historical record shows that Stonehenge is indeed a constructed object, and that humans were living in that area at the time; humans are known to be able to build things. Furthermore, because we know where the stones came from and we can demonstrate how they were transported. The fact that we're not sure precisely how Stonehenge was raised doesn't mean we know nothing about it.

Further, we go with the explanation requiring the least number of usable terms, the principle of Parsimony. Theorising that humans built Stonehenge is not directly refuted by any of the evidence and does not require adding unknowns like 'aliens' which we can't evaluate. You know, like you want to do.

How do historical records show that it was constructed? We don't even know who constructed it. All we have of historical records would be that people before us assumed it was constructed.
There are no known humans living in that area at that time that had any known method of constructing Stonehenge.
By the methodology you have presented, the fact hat we don't know who built it nor how, we cannot assume that anyone built it.
Humans build things, but they do not build buttes. You are assuming humans built Stonehenge with no evidence of it.
You are doing nothing more than a localised version of precisely what you are telling me that I cannot do.

This appears to be a problem in the United States. In Britain, science is taught. There are a few religious schools which manage to avoid the obvious truth, but , almost universally, within our education system, reason and knowledge (as opposed to whimsical mysticism) prevails. Here ID means IGNORANT of DARWIN.

This appears to be a problem in the United States. In Britain, science is taught. There are a few religious schools which manage to avoid the obvious truth, but , almost universally, within our education system, reason and knowledge (as opposed to whimsical mysticism) prevails. Here ID means IGNORANT of DARWIN.
Yeah, it's kind of a problem here. Perhaps our Founding Fathers were wrong, maybe we should have had an established religion like the C of E, maybe by the 21st century we'd be able to ignore it and teach actual science. Not that the ID folks are about to take over the entire educational structure of the country, mind you. They do tend to get into the newspapers more often than regular teachers teaching their subjects quietly and without fanfare.

I have a fairly common sense take on life. I can see no evidence of the existence of a supreme being but cannot deny the possibility. Galileo found compelling evidence that the Earth went round the sun, but was forced to recant by a reactionary Church whose ideas were fixed. Creationism is simply untenable so the religious unsavants have retreated to a new ID defence line. Why humanity is no longer in the trees is a thirst for knowledge, which overwhelms all artificial boundaries, and will expose ID in the white clear light of scientific reason as complete bunkum. Dawkins rules--KO!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/2006-07-17.gif

Nice one Caesar. It mirrors Genesis in the Bible. God offered eternal ignorance. The Devil tempted with knowledge. Adam and Eve chose the latter. Modern man is offered the same choice---religious conformity or freedom to think. The Devil always will have the best tunes!

Nice one Caesar. It mirrors Genesis in the Bible. God offered eternal ignorance. The Devil tempted with knowledge. Adam and Eve chose the latter. Modern man is offered the same choice---religious conformity or freedom to think. The Devil always will have the best tunes!

Thanks Dunroaming...

I wonder how ID'ers deal with scientists who are also Christians...becuase ID'ers are so far removed from science it is painfull.

Frankly
I don't see why Darwin's theories are so incompatable with religion. Unless you take genesis literally, maybe god just figured he'd give the great system of life the ability to augment itself. Honestly who knows these things?

Frankly
I don't see why Darwin's theories are so incompatable with religion.

Because in evolution humans are not "end of the line".

Why is this thread still here? There's the evolutionists and the IDiots, and you'll never switch one from the other.

Why is this thread still here? There's the evolutionists and the IDiots, and you'll never switch one from the other.
Thank you. Next mod that comes along, please lock this thread and send it to hell for eternity.

Why is this thread still here? There's the evolutionists and the IDiots, and you'll never switch one from the other.

It hasn't been about evolution vs. ID for about 20 pages now.

This would not be a debate if both sides stood for freedom of speech and academic impartiality.

This would not be a debate if both sides stood for freedom of speech and academic impartiality.

If we were impartial, we would also pay more attention to the ideas on creation thought up by others than scientists and Christians. Not just other religions, but also those of raving loons after they had too much crack.
Intruiging, but not really practical to give every single one of those billions of theories equal time.

This would not be a debate if both sides stood for freedom of speech and academic impartiality.

Academic impartiality? So Religion belongs in the classroom?

Guess that means ebonics should be taught since they should be impartial.

Freedom of speech? I don't know of too many teachers that embrace Freedom of Speech in the classroom.

In most cases it's a dictatorship and not a democracy.

If we were impartial, we would also pay more attention to the ideas on creation thought up by others than scientists and Christians. Not just other religions, but also those of raving loons after they had too much crack.
Intruiging, but not really practical to give every single one of those billions of theories equal time.

The problem is that when you attack the ideas; you are attacking the Faith......

If we were impartial, we would also pay more attention to the ideas on creation thought up by others than scientists and Christians. Not just other religions, but also those of raving loons after they had too much crack.
Intruiging, but not really practical to give every single one of those billions of theories equal time.

Well how about allowing teachers to acknowlege the way that most people think somthing happened that cannot be explained by science. No crack involved.

Well how about allowing teachers to acknowlege the way that most people think somthing happened that cannot be explained by science. No crack involved.

You mean like the Flying spag monster?

Academic impartiality? So Religion belongs in the classroom?

Guess that means ebonics should be taught since they should be impartial.

Freedom of speech? I don't know of too many teachers that embrace Freedom of Speech in the classroom.

In most cases it's a dictatorship and not a democracy.

yes. yes.

Ebonics is not recognized by the majority of anything.

I am a student teacher and I think that I should be able to teach somthing if most people believe it.

You mean like the Flying spag monster?

his noodly appendeges are not an explantion for anything.

yes. yes.

Ebonics is not recognized by the majority of anything.

I am a student teacher and I think that I should be able to teach somthing if most people believe it.

If you are to be impartial then the majority means nothing.

Many people belive in Christianity. However, teachers are rightfully blocked from preeching to the class since it's a nice controlled environment.

If we left it to the majority to decide what should be taught then there would be even more ignorant people running around.

If you are to be impartial then the majority means nothing.

Many people belive in Christianity. However, teachers are rightfully blocked from preeching to the class since it's a nice controlled environment.

If we left it to the majority to decide what should be taught then there would be even more ignorant people running around.

When did I mention Christianity?

And I merely suggested that the majority opinion should be allowed to be mentioned on a subject that cannot be explained by science in a full way.

When did I mention Christianity?

And I merely suggested that the majority opinion should be allowed to be mentioned on a subject that cannot be explained by science in a full way.

Abiogenises and Evolution are two seperate subjects.

Unfortunately, once you open the door for the Religious people to add their viewpoints; they tend to want more.

There is nothing wrong with setting of a religious theory course. It just doesn't belong the in the science classroom.

Abiogenises and Evolution are two seperate subjects.

Unfortunately, once you open the door for the Religious people to add their viewpoints; they tend to want more.

There is nothing wrong with setting of a religious theory course. It just doesn't belong the in the science classroom.

A student asks what cause the universe to come to be? A teacher is suddenly censored by law as to the very thing that most people believe.

A student asks what cause the universe to come to be? A teacher is suddenly censored by law as to the very thing that most people believe.


Since you would prefer the student learn YOUR particular flavor of creationism, I say thats a good thing.

I am a student teacher and I think that I should be able to teach somthing if most people believe it.

you should be able to teach something if it is true. facts are not subject to democracy. you could make up any ridiculous shit and convince people of it, but it wouldnt make it true and it wouldnt make it acceptable to teach it.

The problem is that when you attack the ideas; you are attacking the Faith......
The people who see it that way never had any faith to begin with.

Well how about allowing teachers to acknowlege the way that most people think somthing happened that cannot be explained by science. No crack involved.

If they say it in the following way, I would consider it acceptable:
"Science does not yet have an answer to the question of abiogenesis.
Quite a few people around here however believe the following [insert religious explanation here]. This explanation does not conform to the high standards needed to be an acceptable scientific theory, and there are quite a few competing similar non-scientific theories on this planet, but as said: many people in this region believe it to be true nevertheless. Feel free to make up your own mind."

A student asks what cause the universe to come to be? A teacher is suddenly censored by law as to the very thing that most people believe.

umm... no actually. I have had several science teachers tell me (if i asked) as to what they personally believed. The fact is that religon does not belong ina science classroom. ID is just creationism designed to allow to be acceptable. If your are already Christian you know what u believe and don't need to be told it all over again (btw i am Christian and i believe in evolution. Contrary to what many ppl think they do not actually conflict). Christians are not being persecuted by not having ID taught in classrooms.

umm... no actually. I have had several science teachers tell me (if i asked) as to what they personally believed. The fact is that religon does not belong ina science classroom. ID is just creationism designed to allow to be acceptable. If your are already Christian you know what u believe and don't need to be told it all over again (btw i am Christian and i believe in evolution. Contrary to what many ppl think they do not actually conflict). Christians are not being persecuted by not having ID taught in classrooms.

That is not a fact. It is an opinion. You should know the difference.

Creationism is a perfectly legitimate scientific theory.

If they say it in the following way, I would consider it acceptable:
"Science does not yet have an answer to the question of abiogenesis.
Quite a few people around here however believe the following [insert religious explanation here]. This explanation does not conform to the high standards needed to be an acceptable scientific theory, and there are quite a few competing similar non-scientific theories on this planet, but as said: many people in this region believe it to be true nevertheless. Feel free to make up your own mind."

How is saying that the universe was created by God not meet the same qualifications that saying the universe was created without God meet?

How is saying that the universe was created by God not meet the same qualifications that saying the universe was created without God meet?

You're absolutly right, there is no difference between them.

Which is why science should refrain from either statement, ans neither belongs to science.

How is saying that the universe was created by God not meet the same qualifications that saying the universe was created without God meet?

The theory of evolution does not say anything about God. It does not need to assume something supernatural and untestable exists - but it doesn't say it doesn't. Nor does it say anything about the creation of the universe.

The main reason God, gods or other supernatural explanations are not considered acceptable in science is because they are untestable cop-outs that do not add anything . Saying "I do not know how it happened" is no different from a practical point of view than saying "I assume that a supreme being that has existed forever (so no unknown origins) for which we can never test did it in ways we cannot comprehend that seem to conflict with our established knowledge - but that is ok because he is vastly superior to us", but takes less time and allows room for other religions as well.

You're absolutly right, there is no difference between them.

Which is why science should refrain from either statement, ans neither belongs to science.
No, the difference is that one "theory" is based on obsevation.

(Neither is actually a theory.)

Well how about allowing teachers to acknowlege the way that most people think somthing happened that cannot be explained by science. No crack involved.
So now you want the Hindu creation myth taught as science? You did say "most people," yes? There is obviously a crack in your noggin :rolleyes:

I agree with Alma Mater about the cop-out part. ID, which claims to be science, encourages giving up on research when the questions become too hard. "I can't figure this out, so an Intelligent Designer must have created it." That ultimately comes down to a very poor image of human capabilities and intelligence, saying that when we come up against hard questions we should just give up.

Well how about allowing teachers to acknowlege the way that most people think somthing happened that cannot be explained by science.
Teachers are allowed to acknowledge that. And they do. Trouble is, Creationism has no experiments, no scientific theories, no testable hypotheses...basically, it's got nothing scientific about it. So a science teacher requires exactly one sentence to cover everything that their students need to know about Creationism.

It doesn't require a lesson plan to say, "Some people believe God did it." Congrats, kids, you just finished our Creationism unit!

Creationism is a perfectly legitimate scientific theory.

One that is immediately then discounted for ever as being something only an imbecile could possibly give credit too.

One that is immediately then discounted for ever as being something only an imbecile could possibly give credit too.


There's nothing to discount.
Contrary to BG's claims, Creationism is not science nor a scientific theory at all.

It can be a philosophy based on the assumption of a Creator, but definitely not a science.

Creationists could try and argue that their philosopy is correct regardless of it not being science and make their point, but they always want to go the extra mile and stamp out the scientific thought.

Of course, there are just as many of those that aren't content that Creationism is not science and want to stamp it out too.

There is definantly more <i>scientific evidence</i> for creation that evolution.

Below is an excellent article written on antimatter and the big band. Check it out.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/pdf_notice.asp?pdf=/docs2006/contest-winner/lamicela.pdf

Another good article.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/preview/part8.asp

Heledir']There is definantly more <i>scientific evidence</i> for creation that evolution.

Below is an excellent article written on antimatter and the big band. Check it out.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/pdf_notice.asp?pdf=/docs2006/contest-winner/lamicela.pdf

Another good article.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/preview/part8.asp

Because these two are science articles in what way?

Heledir']There is definantly more <i>scientific evidence</i> for creation that evolution.

MAy I ask what the Big bang has to do with evolution ? Because both you and the author of the article seem to think they are equivalent.
Only link I see is the age of the universe.

Heledir']There is definantly more <i>scientific evidence</i> for creation that evolution.
Neither of the links you posted lead to scientific research or data.

If you feel Creationism is supported by "scientific evidence," list it. Use your own words. If you have been convinced that there is a scientific case for Creationism, then please present it for us. We all can use Google by ourselves, so we don't need you to post information that we can all call up with a simple search. Instead, give us your unique perspective and your interpretations.

Heledir']There is definantly more <i>scientific evidence</i> for creation that evolution.

Below is an excellent article written on antimatter and the big band. Check it out.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/pdf_notice.asp?pdf=/docs2006/contest-winner/lamicela.pdf

Another good article.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/preview/part8.asp

"Excellent" as in complete rubbish presumably. Whose puppet are you?

Heledir']There is definantly more <i>scientific evidence</i> for creation that evolution.

Below is an excellent article written on antimatter and the big band. Check it out.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/pdf_notice.asp?pdf=/docs2006/contest-winner/lamicela.pdf

Another good article.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/preview/part8.asp


The first paper appears to be a high school paper graded by a parent??? Home schooled?
Regardless, it is not scientific evidence of Creation in the slightest. In fact, Creation or a Biblical perspective had no business being in that paper and the author should have had marks deducted.
This first paper is a critique of the 'Big Bang' theory, it might be interesting, but even if every word written is the truth, it is in no way evidence of Creation. Proving that you don't have the cure for cancer in no way proves that I do have the cure for cancer.

The second is just an opoinion piece. If you like their opinion, it's fine, but again, no evidence of anything in it.

Heledir']There is definantly more <i>scientific evidence</i> for creation that evolution.

Below is an excellent article written on antimatter and the big band. Check it out.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/pdf_notice.asp?pdf=/docs2006/contest-winner/lamicela.pdf

Another good article.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/preview/part8.asp
There is no scientific evidence of the Creation offered in these articles.

The first article makes unfounded statements that God created matter and anti-matter, and explains what anti-matter is. The article doesn't even pretend to offer scientific evidence of the Creation --as stated in its conclusion, it proposes a hole in the Big Bang theory. That's it.

The second article isn't even about the Creation, it's about the ID movement, or more specifically about one author's ideas about it. It's essentially a book review that pokes at ID. Did you link the wrong articles, perhaps?

Creationism is a perfectly legitimate scientific theory.

You are studying to be a teacher?

If you taught that to my children I would have you drummed out of teaching faster than you can say John Scopes.