Y
You
Guest
where did the water on earth come from? tis a mystery to me. is it evidence of a Creators hand, if theres no water theres no life at all.
- Status
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
One is enough. You did not present any evidence for your assertion. As such, I will speculate. Here comes the hypothetical declaration of the “scientific community”, as I imagine it:
**
We**
who are the only valid and accredited members of the “scientific community”
hereby declare that henceforth the so-called
ABIOGENESIS
is null and void. It is being discredited and discarded as
ridiculously unscientific, misguided and idiotic.
Anyone, who dares to disregard this declaration will have to
endure the consequences, which will be comprised of but not limited to:
- public ridicule,
- flogging on the market square,
- their epaulettes as members of the scientific community torn off,
- and their names removed from the annaleses of the ALMA MATER
which was unfortunate enough to let them into its hallow chambers.
been discredited, the only possible alternative:
CREATION by GOD
is now declared and endorsed as infallible, true and unquestionable.
Millions of unreadable signatures follow…
Corrections are welcome, in the unfortunate case this announcement would be less than 100% accurate.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
N
Nixbits
Guest
In post #95:
Lily Bernans:
In post #156:
Lily Bernans:
Lily Bernans:
I asked which scientists and what is the ‘proof’. In post #125 Lily provided a link to an article titled “Scientists Prove Again that Life is the Result of Intelligent Design” (17 August 2011) by Rabbi Moshe Averick. In it, the rabbi criticises an article by Dennis Overbye that gives interviews with scientists working in the field of research into the origins of life. He (Averick) claims that scientists have no idea how life began (which is true) and concludes that “the only reasonable explanation for the emergence of life is Intelligent Design.” But he provides no evidence for this latter claim. It is entirely an argument from incredulity. He can think of no other way it could have happened, so concludes it must be true. This is not, fortunately, how science is done. It is not a ‘proof’ in any sense of the word.
In post #156:
Lily Bernans:
William Dembski’s ‘Explanatory Filter’ has been widely-criticised in the scientific community for the reliability of the methodology itself, the justification given for it, and for the way it has been applied to the question of the origins of our universe. Having read Dembski’s proposal and several of the critiques of it, I can well see why. If this is what you believe is ‘proof’ of intelligent design, then it’s clear that your evidentiary standards are very different to mine.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
Why should I do that?
But I will show how the “fine tuning” argument should be treated:
Some people (SP) say: there are these constants of physics…
Street Urchin (SU): Why those and why not others?
SP: they seemed to be important.
SU: aha… continue, please.
SP: OK, so we hypothesized that maybe they could be different.
SU: Different?
SP: You know a little bit different…
SU: Any reason for that speculation?
SP: Well, we can imagine that they could be different.
SU: But that is empty speculation.
SP: This is philosophy at its finest.
SU: So you play with the idea that the so-called constants are not “really” constants?
SP: Pretty much.
SU: Just like what if the value of “pi” would be different from 3.1415… ?
SP: You got it.
SU: And the result?
SP: You will be amazed, there would be no stable universe, there would be no life possible!
SU: Slow down… if the so-called “constants” could be something else, what are the upper and lower limits?
SP: We have no idea.
SU: What is the probability distribution of those “constants”?
SP: How could we know?
SU: So what do you know?
SP: We can conclude that IF these constants would be different, there would be no life. But since the values are what they are, they cannot be the result of some random event, which leads to the existence of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, most holy, most wise, perfectly merciful and perfectly just God… Isn’t that simply obvious?
SU: My conclusion is that you are just creationists in disguise. You will be disregarded from now on.
N
Nixbits
Guest
Randy, thank you for the book recommendation. But from what I’ve seen of his biography, I don’t think that J Warner Wallace would qualify in my view as a scientist in a field relevant to the origins of the universe or the origins of life. So, unless his book draws upon the work of scientists (in which case it’s the scientist’s own work that I’d like to see), it’s not what I’m looking for as justification for Lily Bernans’ claim.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Do you suppose that Mr. Wallace might quote a scientist or two in the book?
I own the book, and in the back, there are eight pages listing “expert witnesses” as well as 34 pages of footnotes.
From there, you should have more than enough leads to follow in your search, but Wallace has blazed the trail for you.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Now, Randy, I think you are missing the subtle hint being tossed your way. It is not the validity of the evidence that counts. It is the “provenance” of that evidence in terms of who has proposed it. It is only the right kind of people who ought to be listened to because those are the people who “know” what is the correct explanatory narrative and why it is perforce the acceptable one.Do you suppose that Mr. Wallace might quote a scientist or two in the book?
I own the book, and in the back, there are eight pages listing “expert witnesses” as well as 34 pages of footnotes.
From there, you should have more than enough leads to follow in your search, but Wallace has blazed the trail for you.
In any other reality this would be known as an instance of argumentum ab auctoritate or, in rough approximation, an instance of the genetic fallacy being ruthlessly applied in order to dismiss evidence before it is properly assessed. However, in the properly preened, but apathetic, intellectual culture of modernity we simply dispense with the requirement to assess an argument or evidence on its own merits and permit the “experts” to do all our thinking for us.
This apathy with regard to doing our own thinking explains both why political correctness has attained the sanctimonious and high-handed status it has and, at the same time, the cultural mess we are in.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Huh?!?!!??
The way I understand reality, my being in the world is such that it is centred on, in your words, “the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, most holy, most wise, perfectly merciful and perfectly just God” who is the Font, the Father of creation, and who, as other to me, brings me here and now, through no will or volition of my own, into existence.
I see my position as being consistant with the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Please explain why you are on a Catholic Forum disregarding anyone who holds the opinion that God created the universe and man in accordance to what is written in scripture.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Your being taken aback by the “conclusion” that “you are just creationists in disguise” is clearly the result of sophism being disguised as logic. The great leap of “logic” the PA makes between a conclusion plausibly entailing theism to portraying that conclusion as merely disguised “creationism,” functions more as an incantation to ward off what any reasonable person would insist are the requisite steps necessary to prove the claim that theism is merely “creationism” in disguise.
PA simply circumvents the requirement to refute the necessary inference from the fine tuning of the universe to theism by alleging the implication of “creationism.” Such an accustion, in PA’s mind, is sufficient to dissuade any wavering atheists from having second thoughts about the correctness of their position because, he implies, any move at all towards theism will necessarily land them in that cesspool of nonsense called “creationism.”
You see, for PA, no one but a “creationist” could possibly endorse theism, ergo any argument for theism is, de facto, an argument for “creationism.” No need to refute the argument from the fine tuning of the universe, merely allege that it entails “creationism” and no further point need be made or disproved.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
I have absolutely no quarrel with that. I respect that position, even if I don’t agree with it.
The problem is with the attempt to justify that position using a pseudo-scientific “non-argument” - like the “fine tuning” method. If you would simply state your position in accordance with the good old bumper sticker, which said: “Jesus said it, I believe it, that is the end of it” (or a suitable modification of it, like “the church said it, I believe it, that is the end of it”), I would accept your position and would not even comment on it.
The problem is not the faith, it is to try to justify that faith on pseudo-scientific grounds. You don’t need that. Just declare the supremacy of faith, and you will be fine.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Credible link, please that it has been highly criticized, and not Wikipedia. I believe otherwise, but a credible link would convince me otherwise. Thank you.
Never mind. I found some criticisms myself. However, everything is criticized, right or wrong. Criticism of Dembski doesn’t negate intelligent design.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
Neither the guy who made the video, nor you have the foggiest idea what probability theory is all about.
I could explain in detail, but will only do it, if you show that you can understand the explanation.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Oh, I know. I got straight As in my classes that dealt with it.
I didn’t even watch the video. Can’t on this computer. It won’t play videos. I’ll take your word that the man does not know.
Thank you for your offer, but I neither need nor want an explanation.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Here is physicist Luke Barnes engaging in “pseudo–scientific non-argumentation,” then…
ia902708.us.archive.org/4/items/ConversationsFromThePaleBlueDot040-LukeBarnes/040-LukeBarnes.mp3
And – unfortunately for you – he does understand probability theory and dismantles your objections which are based upon a misapplication of probability theory, which you know is the case.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
An interview with the father of Intelligent Design. Straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak, and no disrespect meant to Johnson:
pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/defense-intelligent-design.html
pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/defense-intelligent-design.html
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Apologies for posting a link to a video I could not hear, but I trusted the person speaking even though I could not hear him on this computer. Glad to know he does know what he’s talking about! Thanks for listening.
Edit: Oh, you have a different scientist! Well, thank you for posting a credible link! I will listen when I get to a different computer or tablet.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
No problem. If you do not want to learn, I will leave you to your ignorance, just like that nincompoop whose video you linked to. It is rather telling that you link to a site and you don’t even know what it says.
Par for the course, I guess.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
You are so amazingly smart Pallas - golly gee.No problem. If you do not want to learn, I will leave you to your ignorance, just like that nincompoop whose video you linked to. It is rather telling that you link to a site and you don’t even know what it says.
- Status