Intelligent Design

[rossum]

No, but that was the constraint applied to ID in Charlemagne II’s response:

The “and” indicates that here ID is talking about two separate entities. If it had been phrased, “the universe including life,” then I would have agreed with you.

The conjunction “and” joins two separate entities.

rossum

 

[rossum]

OK, so it would appear you are basing your extropolation of the entire human population based upon the study of 2 people.

What, in your opinion is the correct figure for the number of mutations in the average human? What evidence can you adduce to support your figure?

My figure is 100 - 200 mutations. What is your figure and where is the evidence you have to support it?

And actually, there is plenty of evidence to support ID.

So we are assured.

Evidence has been provided you in this thread.

Where? Either indicate which posts or link to some specific evidence please.

rossum

 

[kbachler]

Hold on there, the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection (you need both for modern biology to work) have not been proven. They have been proposed and supported by more than 100 years of intensive scientific experimentation and exploration. They are the foundation of many scientific disciplines. It is unlikely that any person with a well rounded and modern education would try to refute them. But they have not been proven. Scientific theories are never proven.

Actually, the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection have been proven, to a greater extent than say QED or Relativity.

NOTHING (not just scientific theories) is ever “completely” proven. All knowledge is based on a given assumption set and tacit. (See the excellent work Personal Knowledge by Polyani)

Within any normal acceptance and understanding of the word, evolution has been proven. Does it continue to need adjustments, gaps filled in, etc.? Yes, just as any modern scientific theory does.

 

[vz71]

The “and” indicates that here ID is talking about two separate entities. If it had been phrased, “the universe including life,” then I would have agreed with you.

The conjunction “and” joins two separate entities.

rossum

So it is your contention that the designer of the universe is part of the universe?

 

[kbachler]

Sure, guys who quote the Dover Trial judge as an argument do not deserve consideration. Truth and science is not the domain of a judge.

What does that have to do with anything I just stated? Do yo always change the topic when challenged?

Whoah - wait just a minute. Fair is fair, are you willing to say evo raises these arguments, but ID counters with these? You mislead, too.

ID DOESN’T counter with any arguments, because it doesn’t offer any testable proof. It doesn’t even offer a good thought experiment. So, I am as willing to present it as I am any other hokem, like alchemay, astrology, etc.

For the record if I have a conversation person to person I do present both sides. In these forums many posters come here to attack, some genuinely want to know the debate, and some antagonize.

Since you are so into judging, stop complaining when I judge.

For their benefit proper debate with references they can actually see for themselves is invaluable. Going back and forth in the manner you and I have is not professional and I will try to do better.

This is getting way too personal so this will be my last post with you on a personal basis.

Stick with the science. Show the science. Let posters and lurkers draw their own conlcusions.

 

[vz71]

What, in your opinion is the correct figure for the number of mutations in the average human? What evidence can you adduce to support your figure?
rossum

The fact that you are incorrectly basing a belief of all humans based upon a study of only 2 has nothing to do with ID and everything to do with flawed logic.

 

[vz71]

Actually, the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection have been proven, to a greater extent than say QED or Relativity.

Hence the need for the numerous pages of this thread.

If anything, this thread has shown there are significant problems with the theory.

 

[kbachler]

It’s the only way out of a fine tuned universe.

Wrong, yet again.

The following assertion was made by a poster (I do not recall who), the poster INSISTS this statement must be so.

The number of chaotic universes exceeds the number of orderly universes.

I challenged this argument on four grounds:

1. To date we know of only one universe, and it is orderly, not chaotic
2. There may be laws which make it more likely for orderly universes to arise rather than chaotic ones.
   2(a) Even if "equal or if chaotic exceed orderly, life in any sense that we understand it would likely arise only in orderly universes, thus a being would be unlikely to know about chaotic universes anyway.
3. Even if the number of orderly and chaotic universes that initially arise are equal (or if chaotic is greater than orderly) it is reasonable (and appears likely) that chaotic universes would be much more likely to quickly (perhaps even immediately) self-annihilate, leaving a greater number of orderly universes rather than chaotic universes.
   4. IF there is a multiverse (based on QED decision processes) then there is an infinite or near infinite number of universes, all of which are orderly. To accept as reasonable an assertion that there are a greater number of chaotic universes, either a reasonable reason must be given as to why, OR a reason must be given showing that there is a hierarchy of infinities and that the chaotic infinity exceeds the orderly infinity.

In other words, a poster made a highly speculative claim and insisted it was true with no proof or reason. I offered four reasons why the poster’s assertion may be false, including the multi-verse theory which is no more speculative than the poster’s claim.

For the poster to reasonably claim that his assertion is true, he must reasonably answer all four objections.

I was not promoting the multi-verse theory, saying I believed in the theory, or in any other way suggesting that the theory was real or made sense above any other theory. It was purely part of a rebuttal to a speculative claim.

The next thing I know Charlemagne is basically calling me an atheist and you’re calling me absurd.

If anything, I was arguing FOR (not against) the concept of an orderly universe. So your comment above was about as backward as it could get.

PLEASE, READ and LOOK AT THE CONTEXT. Stop judging things on what you THINK was said and judge them on what was ACTUALLY said.

Thank you.

 

[vz71]

ID DOESN’T counter with any arguments, because it doesn’t offer any testable proof. It doesn’t even offer a good thought experiment. So, I am as willing to present it as I am any other hokem, like alchemay, astrology, etc.

I have to point out something here that may be obvious to some.
You are saying that ID does not counter with arguments or ‘even good thought experiments’
Well, we have an example to look at.

OK, so it would appear you are basing your extropolation of the entire human population based upon the study of 2 people.

Consider how bad an experiment it is to base a conclusion of the entire population upon findings in just 2 people.
This would be laughable if it were not taken seriously by the pro-evolution side of the argument.

What, in your opinion is the correct figure for the number of mutations in the average human? What evidence can you adduce to support your figure?
My figure is 100 - 200 mutations. What is your figure and where is the evidence you have to support it?
So we are assured.
Where? Either indicate which posts or link to some specific evidence please.

rossum

Right…we are not addressing the bad science or the bad study. We are simply going to brush it aside and accuse the other of not coming up with their own evidence.

Psst…pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

 

[kbachler]

Hence the need for the numerous pages of this thread.

If anything, this thread has shown there are significant problems with the theory.

The numerous pages in this thread illustrate the very poor understanding of science by several members of CAF (and I’m concerned about Catholics in general), not a lack of proof of the theory of evolution. I could create a thread on probably any scientific theory and see as many pages generated, allowing perhaps for a difference in passion.

 

[kbachler]

I have to point out something here that may be obvious to some.
You are saying that ID does not counter with arguments or ‘even good thought experiments’
Well, we have an example to look at.

Consider how bad an experiment it is to base a conclusion of the entire population upon findings in just 2 people.
This would be laughable if it were not taken seriously by the pro-evolution side of the argument.

Right…we are not addressing the bad science or the bad study. We are simply going to brush it aside and accuse the other of not coming up with their own evidence.

Psst…pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Where is the example? All I saw was your misunderstanding of the use of statistics.

 

[vz71]

I could create a thread on probably any scientific theory and see as many pages generated, allowing perhaps for a difference in passion.

Of that I am certain.

However, that still does not cover up the flaws in the evolution theory.

 

[vz71]

Where is the example? All I saw was your misunderstanding of the use of statistics.

Right…

This more then anything else explains to me why this thread has been so long.

Like the SOS (still waiting on those examples) on the beach, what is placed right in front for all to see is completely lost upon those that have made up their minds as to what they wish to be true.

There is a phrase that comes to mind.
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

 

[grannymh]

What, in your opinion is the correct figure for the number of mutations in the average human? What evidence can you adduce to support your figure?

My figure is 100 - 200 mutations. What is your figure and where is the evidence you have to support it?

So we are assured.

Where? Either indicate which posts or link to some specific evidence please.

rossum

Just want to insert a thought. Mutations are not a simple thing especially when comparing them with other strands. Watched a professor tackle a simple comparison and he still said that we can’t tell about a particular mutation in reference to which mutation happened first. He is not using a text because of the new material since 2005. Most likely, next year someone will figure out how to deal with today’s questions about genes and the possibilities will continue to multiply.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[kbachler]

Of that I am certain.

However, that still does not cover up the flaws in the evolution theory.

No one is attempting to cover up flaws. Sometimes people think things are flaws when they aren’t at all, and often “flaws” are fairly minor and people try to make them out to be a big deal.

ALL THEORIES have flaws, and will continue to need to be refined - this is also true of ALL KNOWLEDGE.

The objection you’re raising isn’t a significant objection. That’s the point.

 

[kbachler]

Then it must be demonstrated to be observable, repeatable and predictable.

Yes. It has been so demonstrated.

 

[kbachler]

Find some.
Post the pictures.

I am curious to see what you find.

Remember, you set up the parameters for these letters.
In sand, outlines of the letters, and spelling out SOS.

Rossum tried and failed.
Perhaps you will have better luck.

Do you really want to waste time on this trivial example? This is taught in every elementary probability and statistics course. What is the point to proving Texas sharpshooting? This is EXACTLY the entire issue with your argument (and the entire ID argument.) It’s a big version of Texas Sharpshooting.

 

[vz71]

Do you really want to waste time on this trivial example?

Why not?
Surely this would be the most decisive way to show that the ID that I believe is present in the message can be a naturally occurring phenomena.

Pebbles, on a beach, that spell out SOS.
As was the issue before, we are looking for the letter outlines, not a crater.

A poster tried to pass off a sidewinder crawling down the beach as an S and an impact crater as the O. But I am sure you can agree with me that, while creative, fails the conditions.

 

[vz71]

Evolution has ALREADY been proven true.

Then it must be demonstrated to be observable, repeatable and predictable.

Yes. It has been so demonstrated.

Can you please submit some reference to evolution being replicated in a lab?
Keep in mind the difficulties other posters have had doing so.

Specifically, the only example thus far provided of species to species transformation later turned out to be lab borne pathogen.
But also, lab conditions make it very difficult to demonstrate ‘natural selection’ as the selector in the lab is a technician.

Nevertheless, I am sure you can reference these instances. Right?

 

[vz71]

No one is attempting to cover up flaws. Sometimes people think things are flaws when they aren’t at all, and often “flaws” are fairly minor and people try to make them out to be a big deal.

ALL THEORIES have flaws, and will continue to need to be refined - this is also true of ALL KNOWLEDGE.

The objection you’re raising isn’t a significant objection. That’s the point.

Understood.
Evolution has flaws.

So does ID.