1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Living Vs. Nonliving and Visible Vs. Invisible. Classification.

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by questfortruth, Sep 2, 2020.

  1. Brian2

    Brian2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2020
    Messages:
    1,021
    Ratings:
    +133
    Religion:
    Christian
    Sorry I have taken so long to answer.
    There is literally and there is literally. I think I take the creation stories pretty literally, certainly not as allegory. I do take the creation days as being undetermined period of time, and that meaning seem pretty reasonable when we look at how the word "day" is used in the stories.
    The more that archaeology finds the more evidence there is for stories in the OT.
    In Egypt for example under the ruins of Ramasses in Goshen where the Hebrews are said to have lived an area with 12 graves has been found with one of them a small pyramid (a type of grave the Egyptians only used for pharaohs and the like. It is in the time period where the Bible puts the Hebrews in Egypt also. This could definitely be Joseph and his brothers.



    David Rohl seems to want to alter Egyptian chronology but even without doing that the Hebrews can be places in Egypt and into the history of the time.
    The flood has also been found in geology even if it is not a world wide flood. But that does not matter, as the Biblical story can be translated to mean a local flood.

    Now they can be seen as stories that show that the Bible is historically accurate.

    It is depressing for me also at times, but imo it has stopped the whole Christian church from going down the road of the stories being allegories only. It has caused Christians to think more seriously about the nature of the stories and the nature of science, which imo is a good thing.
     
  2. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    15,734
    Ratings:
    +7,348
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    First, The archaeology of Egypt and the Middle East has come along way in recent years, and extended human history far beyond any literal version of the Bible, without any parallel history fo the Hebrews to fit the Biblical account of Moses.

    The geologic evidence is far too complete and documented all over the world as the geology of the world and the history of life over Billions of years. There is absolutely no evidence of a world nor regional flood that would comparable to Biblical version.

    Actually there is no hint of evidence of any ancient text of Genesis nor any of the OT dating any older then maybe 1000 to 600 BCE, and there is no direct evidence during this period, The Hebrew written language history begins in this period as primitive Canaanite language including the Canaanite culture. From here it just goes down hill without any evidence.

    I am a geologist of over 50 years and I have been around the world looking at and studying the evidence
     
    #282 shunyadragon, Sep 17, 2020
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2020
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    2,704
    Ratings:
    +209
    Religion:
    christian

    Your comments are out of context, I simply made the comment that you are responding to show that this statement made by @gnostic is wrong

    Would you agree that this is not the definition of pseudoscience?

    ...

    The point that i made with dark matter was simply to show that atleast sometimes one can stablish that X is the best explanation for Y even if you dont have independent evidence that proves that X exists.

    Scientist say that dark matter is the best explanation for the additional gravity, eventhough there is no independent evidence that proves the existence of dark matter...... Any disagreement from your part?
     
  4. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    15,734
    Ratings:
    +7,348
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    The problem is whether Intelligent Design fits within definition of pseudoscience. and in deed it does.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=pse...j69i57j0l6.9297j1j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    pseudoscience - a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    [/quote] The point that i made with dark matter was simply to show that at least sometimes one can establish that X is the best explanation for Y even if you don't have independent evidence that proves that X exists. [/quote] Without evidence this would be the classic fallacy for 'arguing from ignorance.'

    Actually over time and recent research there is more and more evidence for and the nature of something that behaves like dark matter and energy.

    Of course, science does not prove anything but the evidence for dark matter at present is indirect, but even whether dark matter exists or not, the evidence is for a nature of our universe that behaves like dark matter.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    2,704
    Ratings:
    +209
    Religion:
    christian
    The point that i made with dark matter was simply to show that at least sometimes one can establish that X is the best explanation for Y even if you don't have independent evidence that proves that X exists. [/quote] Without evidence this would be the classic fallacy for 'arguing from ignorance.'

    Actually over time and recent research there is more and more evidence for and the nature of something that behaves like dark matter and energy.



    Of course, science does not prove anything but the evidence for dark matter at present is indirect, but even whether dark matter exists or not, the evidence is for a nature of our universe that behaves like dark matter.[/QUOTE]

    The point is that one can stablish that X is the best explanation for Y even if you dont have additional evidence for the existance of X...... Do you agree with this point? (dark matter is just an example)


    ....

    Whould you afirm that this argument is pseudoscience? Why? Justify your answer

    Premise 1 things that have the atrubute of specified complexity ( SC) are design

    Premise 2 life has SC (talking about the first living thing or self replicating molecule)

    Therefore life was designed
     
  6. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,134
    Ratings:
    +4,842
    Religion:
    Pi π
    Analogy isn’t explanation to ANYTHING SCIENCE.

    Analogy is similar to allegory, where you tell story of one thing that isn’t in anyway related to what you are investigating.

    If you are going to argue with me about origin of life, then we need to talk about the earliest life, what are they, what they are made of (eg cells, proteins, DNA/RNA, genes, chromosomes, and so on), and do they function (eg can it reproduce like mammals, or do they like fishes, amphibians and reptiles, do they reproduce asexually, etc).

    What you don’t do, as these idiots from Discovery Institute have been doing, is comparing life origin, with manufacturing watches, cars, computers, etc, or bloody writing Shakespeare’s sonnets.

    Are Behe and Dembski and Meyer and Johnson bunch of dishonest idiots?

    That’s just rhetorical, so you don’t need to answer this question.

    Now, I know what you are saying isn’t true.

    There have been no single test by any scientists among the members of Discovery Institute.

    And Behe confirmed this, when he was been cross-examined by Mr Rothschild in the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District case in 2005, where Michael Behe was the expert witness supporting Intelligent Design being taught in science classrooms “as science”.

    The verdicts was that Intelligent Design is a religious belief, not science, so therefore cannot be taught in science classrooms.

    But here are some of Behe’s answers to some questions, regarding to Intelligent Design:

    Behe admitted that no ones HAVE EVER PROVIDED EVIDENCE AND NO TESTS (eg "supported by pertinent experiments") for Intelligent Design.

    Then, Behe was asked about his book Darwin's Black Box, which was written for the public readers about Intelligent Design and his concept - Irreducible Complexity:

    He has only tried to "generate an attempt at an explanation". That's just Behe's explanation, which isn't evidence, nor is it some tests.

    I has been 15 years since that civil case, and still no one at the Discovery Institute could come up with one evidence or one test/experiment to support Intelligent Design, nor the existence of the Designer.

    You or Behe or Dembski or anyone can write concepts of ID in their books, magazines, pamplets, websites, social media, YouTube videos, blogs, and whatever other media you can think of, but if provide no verifiable evidence, lab test results and data, then Intelligent Design isn't science.

    So for your to say, they are "testing their method", you are not being honest with me, because Behe has never tested his Irreducible Complexity, nor Dembski with Specified Complexity.

    Beside that, Dembski is a mathematician, not a scientist like a physicist or biologist. He is also philosopher (again, not scientist) and theologian (definitely, not a scientist). So what Dembski have to say about the origin of life - he has no authority, experience and qualification - that I wouldn't take seriously.
     
  7. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    3,578
    Ratings:
    +139
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    When science states as a human in biological sciences, life can only come about from pre existent life. Consciously isn't that life your own human parents?

    If we all live in a water biological life form atmospheric oxygenated body...and microbial form living in the mass, is living inside of the water mass the same as a human does. Isn't posing a theory about a theme, just a human agreed group mentality.

    Why group preaching and coercing was once given a title of self human aware teaching as a cult mentality.

    Only owned and supported by living humans thinking, just as living humans thinking, yet what they compare their selves to, the comparison should be between a human to a human.

    To then realise, oh that is right, women, my human life equal had to fight to regain human rights. For I no longer equated her in my male thoughts to being my life equal.

    Might be why you forgot to compare your equal pre existing human life to the life that pre existed your own male self, your human Mother.

    When you then idealise as a biologist does that an ape was once a male Mother, is when you lost the human conscious self identification reasoning.

    A human can only exist as a human without explanation of where they came from, other than a use of biological information, that is less than the human self.

    Which consciously as small information inference is sperm and an ovary.

    If you quote information in water that you claim you evolved from, then you would removed out the SAME WATER mass body as the status what we own that a microbe or a bacteria never owned....being a fully formed and owned self present body.

    Therefore as a human who can think, I came to a human realisation that understood why the biologist medical Healer life said in the past, do not equate self to being dead. For a human living 100 years ago....given C as a letter a holy hierarchical quote in science was deceased. And we did not get formed from a deceased/returned life bio form.

    Consciousness therefore also became a scientific discussed practice about the mind state of human expression and taught as being relative to its own self deceit...as a scientific stated self human purpose. Why it also became a scientific notification of self in a deceit, a human.

    One very direct teaching stated no man is GOD. The other direct human statement was "never look back" and quote historic information for you did not even exist then. Relevant philosophical scientific teaching.

    Today a short version is who died and made you God? Which brings self reality back to a statement, you are not a Creator other than through a sexual act.

    An ape today owns the creation of an ape baby. We only live PRESENT.

    Therefore a scientific relative teaching quoted only the present owns life, history never did it only owns death.
     
  8. night912

    night912 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages:
    1,071
    Ratings:
    +393
    Religion:
    Not religious
    Obviously, this criteria must be able to function and apply towards determining whether something is designed or not. So this would have to hold up(be true) for all things that we know to be designed. If it does not, then it cannot be use as attributes of design because it did not function as what it was designed to do. (no pun intended) In other words, it does not and cannot be use to differentiate what is designed from what is not designed.

    My objections are what's in red.

    So as I mentioned above, this method must be able to differentiate between what is designed and what is not designed. With the objections that I have shown, it cannot.
     
  9. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    3,578
    Ratings:
    +139
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    A design is actually a human thesis about owning an applied choice to build what they claim a design is. Which is a machine.

    A machine by conditions does not own a pre existing design, for the place where the purpose to gain a machine begins is with the highest form of a mineral particle, which is manipulated only by the human Designer his own self.

    Design in creation as a thesis in science is not a discussion of natural forms owning their natural forms in the conditions of their natural bodies. Which own purposeful and chosen human applied research and also a thesis/theory about a condition we discuss as why.

    Why is a question and not an answer. The research gives why the question and answer is given an answer falsely when it is really a question, when the answer already is the natural form that is existing in its natural form, the design only owned by the natural formed body itself.

    The reactive thesis in science would I believe in design model a machine which natural history, by design did not own itself would be a science quote of trying to put back a body designed naturally historically into its highest pre owned form.

    As if a psyche mind was communicated to by information quoting that ideal changed and removed, then put the design destroyed back together in a machine form.

    Which then would rely on natural design/presence to correlate the information missing in natural designs to enable the wisdom to copy or re build to exist notified, the machine. In natural design the destruction is already apparent to gain that design knowledge of change. The machine then owns the design/building to apply destruction by reaction. What invention by false design meant.

    The teaching to not know changed until it is changed was an actual historic science taught law of relative advice.
     
  10. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    8,975
    Ratings:
    +7,884
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    I only wish that were true. Virtually all the contributions from creationists I have read, on every forum I have taken part in over the years, betray a basic ignorance of science, both its findings and how it works. Often the ignorance is willed: people have taken steps to avoid learning anything that might disturb the naive view of the bible that their faith imposes on them.

    I'm sorry but there is just no way to take the creation stories as anything but allegorical. Origen and the traditional churches were obviously right about that. The different versions in the first two chapters even contradict one another. And the sequence of events described makes no sense scientifically at all (e.g. "days" before the sun was created, the earth being created before the sun, man being created before the other animals - in the second version - and so forth.)

    I agree the flood can be a "fisherman's tale" based on real local floods in Mesopotamia. It is clearly a very ancient myth, taken and adapted from much earlier Epic of Gilgamesh.
     
    #290 exchemist, Sep 18, 2020
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2020
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    3,578
    Ratings:
    +139
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    Theme teaching about using God inferred consciousness instead of Satanic theist destruction.

    To repeat the constant self destructive thesis which causes Earth flooding.

    Repeat, from repetere, Peter...the quote "get back behind me Satan" inferring to conscious thinking that is self destructive belong only in the past. As a teaching about conscious SEEING. To see it repeated knowing that the holy fusion of God the stone body in Holy womb Mother space vacuum history was sealed.

    Knowing by visionary concepts that the origin of the Sun attacking and causing conversion of Earth mass was the information given to the scientist male researching converting thesis...as a matter of fact....and Earth flooding was another sealing event as a thesis.

    Thesis, water bio conscious life that supports every single living body inside of the water/oxygenated mass, true to self in Holy baptism...water over the head holy and not a flame.

    Irradiation gas burning due to breaking the seal of radiation cold fusion of the Earth seal, the phenomena paranormal attack/sacrifice of life. God the Earth sealed releasing its seal and attacking/sacrificing life.

    Causing massive ground split of water by evaporation, that then accumulates extra water mass in cloud amassing, which not only produced extra cloud mass, it also produced imagery of the ground Nature attacked. How the spirit that we use and live got taken from out of our bodies/ownership and flew off into the heavens.

    As a scientific natural descriptive observation. About life Holiness on God the planet given a named entity so that it would be honoured as the creator, stone natural mass as heavenly gas ownership. So that no one could then quote a thesis to alter the fused body of the only planet we live on.

    Is not some myth, it is real, it is about thinking, using words non actually, it is about theorising itself and giving false idealisation to what is seen but ignored in plain sight. It is about releasing change when change is not seen until it manifests.

    As a teaching against science of destruction to life, its attack and sacrifice.

    If a male applied a biological research into why life changed and is not healthy and equal in the exact same water mass, then detail what bacteria and also microbes that science irradiated and removed out of the teaching God one Earth stone, one heavenly mass owned by God the planet.

    For a male to quote keep my evil thinking repetitive self destructive thoughts behind me?
     
  12. Brian2

    Brian2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2020
    Messages:
    1,021
    Ratings:
    +133
    Religion:
    Christian
    No doubt there are ways to understand what the Bible tells us about the creation which do not need it to conform to any science. So there is no imposition of a certain way of understanding it by my faith at least, I just see a conformity of Genesis to ideas in science concerning the beginnings.
    I do see however that there are many fundamentalist churches that teach that a young earth is the only alternative when it comes to understanding the Bible. People who go to those churches and have been sucked in by that teaching are the ones who have their own science on the subject and who feel that their faith imposes a young earth on them.

    There are no doubt different ideas from the early church and Judaism about the stories. I hear Augustus said that the days of creation may not have been 24 hour days.
    The different versions in chapters 1 and 2 are not really different versions. Chapter 1 is about the creation of the universe and Chapter 2 is more specifically about the creation of humans and what happened when God created them. I think God probably created the animals that Adam would have dealings with so that he could name them. (and of course that leads in to the creation of Eve).
    Interestingly in verses 5 and 6 we can see that this event happened before there were any plants and so it looks to be talking about what happened on day 2 or 3 of chapter one. God began to form man from the dirt on day 2 or 3 and finished on day 6 and it was only then that God breathed spirit into him and created man.
    On days 2,3,4,5 and 6 it could be that man was evolving into something that God wanted.
    In Gen 1:1 we see that the universe was created in verse 1 and then God speaks from the vantage point of the earth and says it was dark and empty. It was dark because it was surrounded by thick clouds. (see Job 38:9) and it seems to have had an ocean in those early days. Ideas in science agree with the ocean and cloud cover.
    Anyway the point I am trying to make is that the sun was already in existence then and was not seen until day 4 even though light was getting through the clouds. It comes down to an understanding of the language uses. In chapter 4 the word usually translated as "made" does not necessarily mean bring into existence but can mean to bring about in the broadest possible way. So no, the sun was not created on day 4.

    I did not say it was a small local flood, but it was not world wide. The story of Noah is confined to that area and tells what happened there imo. The words can be translated to mean that "high mountains" can be translated "high hills", "earth" can be translated "land" etc.
    This is not to say that extensive flooding did not happen at that time in other areas of the earth so that God could have pretty much obliterated humans, but seems to have saved some from many cultures, as their stories attest. As far as I can tell there was a time at the end of the last ice age when extensive flooding did happen in various parts of the earth. So I do not down grade the Noah story, just made the extent of that particular part of the flood smaller than most translations would have it.
    The way I see the Epic of Gilgamesh is that a true event was recorded there and in the Bible a more true version of events was given. There is no reason to say that the Bible version was copied unless you are into the development of religions ideas that anthropology has,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,rejecting that any one religion is true right from the get go.
     
  13. Brian2

    Brian2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2020
    Messages:
    1,021
    Ratings:
    +133
    Religion:
    Christian
    I think you have probably been reading the wrong books. I have been reading recently "Kingdom of Priests" by Eugene Merrill and evidence for the literal version is well presented there.
    There is a certain prejudice by some scholars to use the dating that the Bible provides for the stay in Egypt and the Conquest and to even admit that the Biblical account could be true.

    There is evidence for flooding in many parts of the world at the end of the last ice age and there is evidence of a large local flood in the area of Noah also. (read what I just wrote to Exchemist.)

    Should we even expect ancient manuscripts from the time of Moses to exist. Moses was educated in Egypt in the courts of Pharaoh and no doubt knew how to write and maybe knew more than how to write Egyptian. It is certainly possible that Moses wrote most of the first 5 books of the Bible and also that he got a lot of his information from the Hebrew families with him in the wilderness at the time. In Egypt the Hebrews were in their own area and I would say kept their own traditions alive, traditions from the time before they came to Egypt.
     
  14. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    15,734
    Ratings:
    +7,348
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Without evidence this would be the classic fallacy for 'arguing from ignorance.' [/quote]

    The indirect or existing limited evidence is required to give a hypothesis a basis to have predicive value concerning the nature of our physical existence.

    The point is that one can establish that X is the best explanation for Y even if you dont have additional evidence for the existance of X...... Do you agree with this point? (dark matter is just an example) [/quote]

    In science physical evidence, indirect or direct, is required to propose a hypothesis. This has been true throughout the history of science. Black Holes were proposed as a hypothesis many years before the direct evidence was found. This is the nature of the predictive nature of hypothesis, which is needed and necessary to propose a hypothesis. In contrast there is absolutely no indirect evidence available to propose a hypothesis for Intelligent design.

    There is no direct nor indirect evidence for the attributes of Intelligent Design that could possibly affirm that simply natural laws and processes are not an adequate explanation.

    There is adequate explanation and abundant evidence and research for 'Specified Complexity' resulted from Natural Laws and processes. The advocates of Intelligent Design have failed to present an alternative predictive hypothesis for what already has an adequate explanation through predictive scientific hypothesis.

    The bottom line is there is absolutely no evidence for a 'Designer' out side nature whether aliens or God(s).
     
  15. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    15,734
    Ratings:
    +7,348
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    The evidence for the archaeological research is direct and verifiable going back to the Neolithic thousands of years older than any literal interpretation of the time frame of Genesis. Simply the objective evidence everyone can see uncovered by the archaeologists documents that the Biblical account cannot be true, especially on the Biblical time frame.

    I previous stated the answer is absolutely NO evidence for the Biblical flood. Of course there is evidence throughout recent history and geologic history for 'local' floods of known origin and well dated to occur at different times. For example: The catastrophic flooding in China is documented and dated as the flooding of a major river in China. In Japan and the West Coast of North America the catastrophic flooding is documented as flooding by Tsunamis. The Catastrophic flooding in the Scab Lands of Western USA is local and documented as the collapse of an ice dam lake in the Ice Age.

    As a geologist going around the world have seen the evidence for many of these local floods and their causes, and can cite the scientific references to support this. In China, and the Tsunamis of Japan and Western US we have testimony of the survivors that document and date the floods. There was no Ark in these regions.


    There is absolutely objective verifiable evidence for this claim.

    As far as the direct geologic evidence. There are documented incremental deposition of sediments without interruption going back billions of years in various locations in the world without interruption in cyclic patterns. The evidence of gradual erosion and mountain building over incremental time is overwhelming. The evidence is documented that the rivers of the world slowly erode and cut down through the sediments and solid rock over millions of years to deposit huge deltas in the same manner as is happening today without interruption.
     
    #295 shunyadragon, Sep 18, 2020
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2020
  16. Brian2

    Brian2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2020
    Messages:
    1,021
    Ratings:
    +133
    Religion:
    Christian
    It is not about God changing the laws of physics regularly it is about God having done what He said He would did in the past. And who is to say that God did not just use the laws of physics to do it? If God made it all so that it could evolve in a certain direction using the laws of physics then God can also alter environmental conditions so that His design could progress as planned and not get stuck in the fish stage or something.
    The Bible has told us that the universe had a beginning. The Bible told us that the early earth was covered by water and thick clouds. The Bible told us that the earth hangs on nothing and seems to say it is a ball. The Bible told us that the mountains rose up and the valleys sunk down. The Bible told us the order of appearance of living things on earth and apart from birds science has it right. There are many other things that God has told us that science has discovered later.
    Knowledge seems to be something that can grow exponentially. Once we discover one thing then others follow. No doubt religious powers that were had been holding some things back for sure. In some ways the industrial revolution was good and in some ways it was not so good and has given us many problems.

    I don't know what the germ theory has to do with church teachings and we now understand the Bible in a different way. We have over the years understood the Bible in the light of current scientific knowledge and that is also happening with evolution etc.

    Correct in what it says about origins mainly but amongst other things.

    I'm saying that science is showing Biblical history to be true but many people don't realise this of course and even if they did they would not want to believe in miracles anyway even if prophecies happened and are still being fulfilled many people will attack the Bible rather than believe such things.

    Partly maybe but the attacks are against the whole Bible and not just against what it is thought Genesis says.
     
  17. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    8,975
    Ratings:
    +7,884
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    The basic fallacy here is the presumption that there always has to be a "best explanation" for everything, so if you haven't any better ideas then you can slot in God of the Gaps and call it "science". Science doesn't work like that. In science, a hypothesis without any evidence has no standing: it is just a speculation.

    A second fallacy is the false distinction made between direct and indirect evidence. All evidence is in some sense indirect. The evidence for the existence of molecules is "indirect", in that we can't actually see them with the naked eye. Same for the objects in the cosmos that we can only detect via a radio telescope. Or for clouds of interstellar hydrogen that we only detect via the 21cm line in the spectrum. So it's a pretty meaningless distinction. The important issue is whether or not there is evidence at all, and then whether that evidence is unambiguous or subject to various possible interpretations.

    In the case of dark matter there is evidence for the presence of something that gravitates like matter. That is evidence. The only thing we are really sure of that does this is matter. So we call it "dark matter" while we try to work out what it is. We don't make any specific claims for its nature, as we don't have enough evidence. So there is no "best explanation" idea invoked.

    Specified complexity is a bogus notion of a discredited individual (Dembski) , so it is not the basis for anything at all.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  18. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    2,704
    Ratings:
    +209
    Religion:
    christian
    The indirect or existing limited evidence is required to give a hypothesis a basis to have predicive value concerning the nature of our physical existence.
    ][/QUOTE]
    All I am saying is that one can establish dark matter as the best explanation for aditional gravity, even if you don’t have independent evidence that prove the existence of such a substance…………..agree yes or no




    Hold un, at this point I am simply trying to establish that the argument is not pseudoscience and it´s logically valid……….with this I mean that the argument is testable, each of the premises could be analyzed using the scientific method, and each of the premises is falsifiable and that the conclusion logically follows from the premises………any disagreement form your part.

    after we angree on this points, we can move on and see if the premises are likelly to be true or not

    Just for context this is the argument I am talking about
    Premise 1 things that have the atrubute of specified complexity ( SC) are design

    Premise 2 life has SC (talking about the first living thing or self replicating molecule)

    Therefore life was designed
     
  19. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    2,704
    Ratings:
    +209
    Religion:
    christian

    Please understand my point…. All I am saying is that it would be fallacious to say “I wont accept dark matter as an explanation for gravity” unless you prove to me that dark matter exists.

    In the same way it is fallacious to say that “I won’t accept design as the explanation unless you prove to me that the designer exists” you might have other reasons to reject design. But this reason in particular is fallacious …

    ---- In shor all you have to stablish is that the existance of a designer and dark matter is possible (and not very improbable)

    .any disagreement from your part?


    Or to put it in another way…. If the a conclusion “X” logically follows from well supported premises you are justified in accepting “X” even if you don’t have additional evidence that shows that X exists…..(unless you have a good independent argument against “X”)……….any disagreement from your part?
     
    #299 leroy, Sep 18, 2020
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2020
  20. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    8,975
    Ratings:
    +7,884
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Since science does not deal in proof, nobody in science would ever demand that anything is "proved" to exist, as a prerequisite for it to be used in a hypothesis.

    Furthermore, nobody scientific argues that design in nature can't exist because of the absence of "proof" of a designer. That's a straw man.

    The reason for rejecting the notion of design is more basic. It is impossible to define "design" in any way that is not essentially arbitrary and subjective, whereas science goes to great lengths to deal only in data and ideas that can be objectively corroborated.

    This is precisely why Dembski focused on bamboozling people with his bogus idea of "specified complexity". It was an attempt to overcome that problem by putting forward a supposedly objective criterion for defining, and thus detecting, design. But of course it was nothing of the kind and eventually got exposed, once people could be bothered to wade through the mathematical obfuscation.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
Loading...