The Evidence for ID THREAD!!

Passerbye · May 19, 2005

Well I tried to just be a spectator but you seemed to have dragged me out of my hole. Lets get on with the fun shall we.

But I am surprised that Passerbye didn't think to tell us until after my comments were posted.

My reasons for leaving were listed. You had very little, if anything, to do with them.

If you are not equating God, in any way, with the Intelligence, would you swear that, as they say, on a stack of Bibles? If you can do this, then we can talk about other means of "begining" with intelligence.

34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one." Matthew 5:34-37 NIV

He did explain the argument from ignorance. With the coin analogy. If two possibilities presented are A and B, and you conclude that A is not possible this does not make B true, because there could be a C and a D... etc.. In order to accept B as reasonably likely, you have to validate B. Not concentrate on invalidating A alone.

Oh okay. So lets work on this basis for a little bit shall we. Name one thing of the past that can be postulated without an Argument from Ignorance being stated.

Hes quite right to call it a jump unless the reasons for coming to that conclusion are presented.

So unless reasons are presented then it is a jump? You have not invalidated his conclusions or postulated on how he got to them, thus it must be a jump? Argument from Ignorance.

Hilarious! The bible references to followers as 'sheep' and the 'flock' is so amazingly ironic one would think the writers had a good sense of humour...

Very childish. The way things are understood as humor has not always been the same. If you think that they called them sheep and it was funny at the time you would be wrong. As far as I know this statement from the bible could have been the start of that humor. Too many people switching to Christianity; someone says so youre just another sheep; a few years later the humor has been formed.

We haven't. What's the point? This is the classic Argument from Ignorance - that your good friend Passerbye was never able to come to grips with. Please understand this - if you could prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that evolution was a complete hoax, with not one iota of truth - it would still NOT be evidence FOR ID. If you get nothing else from this thread (or this post), please learn this one immutable fact.

Oh, I wasnt able to come to grips with it. I simply came to the conclusion that stating that something is an argument from ignorance is useless since every statement about the past or future or hypothesis falls under that category in one way or another. It seems to me that it doesnt belong here. If I am wrong in this then state a situation where it would be wrong and we can work from there.

IF, and when, you understand logic, it's basic categories of fallacies, and how to construct a valid argument, you might have a chance of advancing your position. Until then, you merely persist in repeating your mantra of foolishness. Unfortunately, extreme repetition does nothing to bolster your position - it merely underscores your lack of understanding, and reveals an unwillingness to learn.

Do you think no one that has come to other theories besides yours understands logic?

And how do we know this to be true? You still have not provided us with any evidence (analogy notwithstanding). As you require of us in item #2 You can't show any example of it being created without intelligence or design. You can't show us any example of it being created with intelligence and design.

DNA creates DNA by using its genetic information (intelligence), thus intelligence can create DNA.

No. This is an Argument from Ignorance. Even if you could disprove evolution (which you have not), that is not equivalent to providing evidence FOR ID. You can rephrase your argument a million different ways, but until you provide positive evidence in support of Intelligent Design, you have done nothing to further your position.

Can you prove evolution positive, other than presenting countless theories and hypotheses about what the data shows, when the data can be interpreted just as easily in other ways.

DNA cannot be created naturally

This is true. It has never been observed and the facts show that molecules that must be formed for life dont naturally get together. They make other things, other ways. I have not seen any chemistry information that shows that the parts of life join together naturally. The fact is they hate it, the refuse it, and if they did it wouldnt last more than a second or two; and that is only with the individual parts of it, which there are many parts that hate to form what is required for life. The molecules required would need to all be forced to join to make the correct things for life, the things would need to come together properly, and they would need to be in an environment that wouldnt destroy them. Such conditions are absolutely unthinkable. The figures given on how probable it is for this to happen are used to say that there is a chance. The fact it that when conditions are made the same probability is always present. It doesnt change just because there is more space, or because the same options were present in other places. If the probability is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. then if it there are 999,999,999,999,999,999,999 tests the probability isnt 1 in 1 in the last test. It is still 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Do you recognize this?

I'm not palying any sort of game. You merely refuse to argue logically, and instead tell me what I'm arguing. This is never entirely what I said, so there is always something for you to bash in it, even if the thing you choose to bash wasn't present in my original argument.

Hey, that is what you guys have been doing. Isnt that nice of you.

so all the parts of DNA are known to form natually. Amino Acids, protiens, self replicating protiens (ie prions) and so on... so why is the formation of DNA with natual means impossible?

No. I have not read anything that shows that the things required for life can at all form together. If you have found such data please post a link for me.

Because he doesn't want it to be?

Oh, now your speculating on how a conclusion was reached. Stick to speculating on your own mind and conclusions. Unless previously stated, what he wants and the way he comes to a conclusion can only be speculated on and thus the opinions should be kept to yourself. This is not a place for mental speculation. It is a place for discussion threw showing data and interpreting it.

Pah · May 19, 2005

pah said:
If you are not equating God, in any way, with the Intelligence, would you swear that, as they say, on a stack of Bibles? If you can do this, then we can talk about other means of "begining" with intelligence.

Passerbye said:
34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one."Matthew 5:34-37 NIV

Yes or no would be fine. You played a game with scripture and didn't answer the question posed either here (where you avoided it with verse) or there (where you abruptly left).

Let's try it again in acordance with your biblical injunction.

If Yes is the answer to

Are you equating God with the Intelligence? If so [a yes answer], there are two things you must show
* That there is credible evidence that God exists - and-
* that God has the intelligence to make this whole thing possible.

If No is the answer to the above question

we can talk about other means of "begining" with intelligence.

As an aside, given the scripture, Bush must be from the "evil one" and an overwhemingly number of court cases too! :biglaugh:

Tawn · May 19, 2005

Passerbye said:
Oh okay. So lets work on this basis for a little bit shall we. Name one thing of the past that can be postulated without an Argument from Ignorance being stated.

*sigh*
It depends on what you are postulating.
Are you trying to postulate definite and undenyable facts?
Or are you making hypothesis that you deem to be probable and likely, but with room for alternative theories if they can present their case?

So unless reasons are presented then it is a jump? You have not invalidated his conclusions or postulated on how he got to them, thus it must be a jump? Argument from Ignorance.

He is quite right to postulate that it is a jump. If it isnt a jump then it should not be difficult to explain why it isnt. We are dealing with knowledge we can get to grips with here. Not past events which nobody was a witness to.

Very childish. The way things are understood as humor has not always been the same. If you think that they called them sheep and it was funny at the time you would be wrong. As far as I know this statement from the bible could have been the start of that humor. Too many people switching to Christianity; someone says so youre just another sheep; a few years later the humor has been formed.

So serious..

Lighten up..

DNA creates DNA by using its genetic information (intelligence), thus intelligence can create DNA.

Thats a completely different intelligence to God creating DNA from raw materials.
The problem is you are equating DNA with a CD or Book. Seeing it as a deliberate recording of information. Try thinking of it more like a forest path. It is essentially a recording of animals walking down that route many times. There is no intent, purpose or intelligence behind it - it is just shaped by natural occurances. Recorded Information does not necessary equal intelligence.

Can you prove evolution positive, other than presenting countless theories and hypotheses about what the data shows, when the data can be interpreted just as easily in other ways.

I would really like to hear counter theories of what the data shows. Evolution is the most likely and possible hypothesis we can generate from the data available. We therefore conclude that evolution is true until a counter hypothesis shows some strength.
If you can show how the data proves ID likely, that would be great. We would finally be seeing some evidence to support ID and we could get into a proper debate.

>>> DNA cannot be created naturally
This is true.

See? You are making absolute definite statements. Therefore falling under 'that' fallacy.

You should be saying things like 'I believe its unlikely that DNA can be produced naturally because it has yet to be shown'.

It has never been observed and the facts show that molecules that must be formed for life dont naturally get together. They make other things, other ways.

Thats a very vague analysis. Can you be more specific? As far as im aware in chemistry elements 'prefer' certain molecular combinations to others - but under the right conditions can react with less preferred elements.

I have not seen any chemistry information that shows that the parts of life join together naturally. The fact is they hate it, the refuse it, and if they did it wouldnt last more than a second or two; and that is only with the individual parts of it, which there are many parts that hate to form what is required for life.

I think we'd like to hear more about this.

The molecules required would need to all be forced to join to make the correct things for life, the things would need to come together properly, and they would need to be in an environment that wouldnt destroy them. Such conditions are absolutely unthinkable.

That sounds like an opinion rather than fact...

The figures given on how probable it is for this to happen are used to say that there is a chance. The fact it that when conditions are made the same probability is always present. It doesnt change just because there is more space, or because the same options were present in other places. If the probability is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. then if it there are 999,999,999,999,999,999,999 tests the probability isnt 1 in 1 in the last test. It is still 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Do you recognize this?

Lets take the national lottery. The chances of a particular person winning are 14 million to 1. The chances of someone winning are much higher. Not 1 to 1 but certainly well above 50%.. dependant of course on how many people play. The more that play, the closer to 1 to 1.
Therefore the chances do increase if there is more space and therefore more opportunity for something to occur.

Oh, now your speculating on how a conclusion was reached. Stick to speculating on your own mind and conclusions. Unless previously stated, what he wants and the way he comes to a conclusion can only be speculated on and thus the opinions should be kept to yourself. This is not a place for mental speculation. It is a place for discussion threw showing data and interpreting it.

Great. Show some data and we can cease to speculate on each others thought processes.
If you have no evidence to present to the 'Evidence for ID thread'.. then you shouldnt be posting your opinions. If you do - you can hardly blame us for speculating on how that opinion was reached.

Passerbye · May 19, 2005

I have no way of proving God to you other than to prove his word, the Bible. If you are willing to accept some information in that area then I shall post it. Are you willing?

Tawn · May 19, 2005

Passerbye said:
I have no way of proving God to you other than to prove his word, the Bible. If you are willing to accept some information in that area then I shall post it. Are you willing?

No, not necessary, I find the bible to be highly suspect. It is open to human flaws and abuse and misinterpretation. It is a book written by highly superstitious and unknowledgeable people. If there are passages that provide some form of logical basis for ID then fine - but if your argument for ID amounts to - 'it says so in this book'.. then it really wouldnt be worth posting.

What Id like to know what alternative interpretation of natural data you have which suggests ID as per this statement:

Can you prove evolution positive, other than presenting countless theories and hypotheses about what the data shows, when the data can be interpreted just as easily in other ways.

Passerbye · May 19, 2005

http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/documents/CatastrophicPlates1/CatastrophicPlates1.htm

Tawn · May 19, 2005

Please be aware that in not rejecting the bible out of hand. Im aware that there is a book and in summation it says that God made everything. Theres not much point posting anything to this effect because we are all aware of this.

Passerbye · May 19, 2005

Only to show how it was made.

Jayhawker Soule · May 19, 2005

Passerbye said:
Oh okay. So lets work on this basis for a little bit shall we. Name one thing of the past that can be postulated without an Argument from Ignorance being stated.

<yawn> By the numbers: </yawn>
The argumentum ad ignorantium [fallacy] is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true. A qualification should be made at this point. In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence. [Irving M. Copi & Carl Cohen, Introduction to Logic; from Wikipedia]

Name one thing of the past that can be postulated without an Argument from Ignorance being stated. [Passerby]

Mozart composed music. [QED]

Passerbye · May 19, 2005

Thank you.
But how do you know that Mozart did it. Could he not have stollen the music he said he composed from someone else that he kept locked away for just that reason?

Jayhawker Soule · May 19, 2005

Passerbye said:
Thank you.

OK

Passerbye said:
But how do you know that Mozart did it.

I'm sorry, but the sub-topic is Argument from Ignorance. The question is irrelevant, other than serving to futher demonstrate your ignorance of logical fallacies. Do you not agree that your argumentation might have greater credibility if you knew what you were talking about?

Passerbye · May 19, 2005

I'm sorry, but the sub-topic is Argument from Ignorance. The question is irrelevant, other than serving to futher demonstrate your ignorance of logical fallacies.

And I am trying to demonstrate something. Just try to prove it wrong. Are you willing to "play along"?

Jayhawker Soule · May 19, 2005

Passerbye said:
And I am trying to demonstrate something.

And you have. Thanks.

Passerbye · May 19, 2005

You avoided the question.

Are you willing to "play along"?

What you tried to prove is my question is irrelevent. How would you know this until you see the results of the question. Play along and you will see the point I am trying to demonstrate.
I ask again, are you willing to play along?

Tawn · May 19, 2005

Passerbye.. the issue isnt whether Mozart composed that music or not.. and in attacking Deuts comment in that way you show that you didnt understand the point he was trying to make.

Also, the link you posted.. im not going to try to tear apart an entire essay by someone else on this board here.. perhaps you could give your brief summary - what you believe and dont believe from the essay.. then we can debate and use the link as a reference.

Tawn · May 19, 2005

Ok ill play along.
We can reasonably assume that Mozart did compose that music because there is substantial evidence supporting that claim.

Jayhawker Soule · May 19, 2005

Passerbye said:
I ask again, are you willing to play along?

Q. Name one thing of the past that can be postulated without an Argument from Ignorance being stated.
A. Mozart composed music.

Game over. Rather than insisting on play time, it might be deemed far less childish to recognize that recess is over, and that its way past time for you to actually attempt to understand the fallacy you've referenced.

Passerbye · May 19, 2005

Passerbye.. the issue isnt whether Mozart composed that music or not.. and in attacking Deuts comment in that way you show that you didnt understand the point he was trying to make.

I understood the point he tried to make. I am just trying to draw it out to make another point. I am not trying to attack him. If someone else is willing to take the challenge I would be willing to accept that. I am sorry "Deut. 32.8" if it seemed like I was trying to attack you.

Also, the link you posted.. im not going to try to tear apart an entire essay by someone else on this board here.. perhaps you could give your brief summary - what you believe and dont believe from the essay.. then we can debate and use the link as a reference.

My opinions on the essay are irrelevent. They would be just that... opinions. The question is what do you think of the information given, the theories presented, and why do you see it that way.

Tawn · May 19, 2005

I think Deut hes going to try to show you how 'Mozart composed Music' is an argument from ignorance.

Tawn · May 19, 2005

Passerbye said:
The question is what do you think of the information given, the theories presented, and why do you see it that way.

Bah thats going to take me some time.. youll have to wait..
However, I would ask the exact same back to you. You are trying to convince us of ID are you not?

The Evidence for ID THREAD!!

Member

Uber all member

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Member

-- untitled --

Member

-- untitled --

Member

-- untitled --

Member

Active Member

Active Member

-- untitled --

Member

Active Member

Active Member