The Evidence for ID THREAD!!

[kidnic]

So if its not on the internet, it doesnt exist? You are closed to the possibility that the source of the ink is a closely guarded secret which isnt on the internet.

You are making another assumption.

Nope, no assumption:
He merely looked on the Internet to find that it can't possibly be formed naturally.

 

[Tawn]

Nope, no assumption:
He merely looked on the Internet to find that it can't possibly be formed naturally.

Regarding the internet as an absolutely correct source of information is an assumption.
Likewise, you can only disprove theories made regarding the way in which it may have naturally occured. You cannot disprove a method which hasnt even been proposed yet.
Even if you could say for definite that the ink cannot be produced naturally.. it would still be an assumption to say that the ink must have been manufactured (though in this case a sensible assumption). You are assuming there are no other possibilities. (eg, created supernaturally, but without intelligence)

Tawn,
This "back and forth" is only a tactic. When we play his game, and indeed it is a game, he avoids answering the points made.

I know, but in the process I hope everyone else is forming a particular opinion of him.
Anyway, I think ive made my point.. ill have to get on with work soon..

 

[kidnic]

Regarding the internet as an absolutely correct source of information is an assumption.

No, you don't have to assume that either.

If the Internet provides you with a logical conclusion, then it obviously remains logical outside the realm of the Internet. It doesn't matter where you take it.

 

[kidnic]

Tawn,
This "back and forth" is only a tactic. When we play his game, and indeed it is a game, he avoids answering the points made.

I know, but in the process I hope everyone else is forming a particular opinion of him.
Anyway, I think ive made my point.. ill have to get on with work soon..

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.

 

[Tawn]

How can you logically conclude that the ink could not have occured naturally?
In other words, how do you logically conclude that DNA could not occur naturally?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

So, actually my argument isn't a fallacy of this form, since I have not assumed anything. If I have made no assumptions, then my argument could not possibly be of the above form, because if you look at the first paragraph, you can see that assumptions are required.

Your ENTIRE position is based on the assumption that Intelligent Design is the answer. You have no evidence to support that belief, and it IS an assumption - your position is a textbook case of an Argument from Ignorance - if you cannot see that, fine. You can whine and complain all you wish, but until you provide evidence FOR ID, you have no position - only your assumption.

Nah, the discussion of this topic does not revolve around my beliefs. So when you say that I'm lying because I say that ID doesn't necessarily mean that "God" did it, this is slander.

I didn't say you were lying - I said it was either disengenuous or you were lying. I guess we can see which it is. The reason that you cannot, and have not, answered Pah's question (who is the Intelligent Designer) is for the sole purpose of perpetuating the lie. You may continue to claim that God isn't the Intelligent Designer, but we all know what you are really saying. Not a problem. You simply lose all credibility from that point on.

TVOR

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I didn't say you were lying - I said it was either disengenuous or you were lying.

It's good to always offer a balanced assessment.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Well - I didn't want to pigeonhole his position.

TVOR

 

[kidnic]

How can you logically conclude that the ink could not have occured naturally?
In other words, how do you logically conclude that DNA could not occur naturally?

Simple. You show it to be true.

 

[kidnic]

Your ENTIRE position is based on the assumption that Intelligent Design is the answer. You have no evidence to support that belief, and it IS an assumption - your position is a textbook case of an Argument from Ignorance - if you cannot see that, fine. You can whine and complain all you wish, but until you provide evidence FOR ID, you have no position - only your assumption.

Me believing or not believing that ID is the answer has nothing to do with my presentation of evidence. Therefore, my position still isn't a case of Argument from Ignorance.

 

[Tawn]

Simple. You show it to be true.

Ha ha.. this is exactly what we mean. Lack of proof is not proof of an alternative. Read that fallacy statement again.

No let me save you the time.

Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." (p. 59)

Your basis for believing that DNA could not occur naturally or for believing that the ink could not occur naturally is founded on the fact that no evidence to support such a theory has yet been found.
Thats basically the same as assuming something to be false because it hasnt been proven to be true.

If I cant show you an example of DNA occuring naturally (lets leave the cell reproduction aside..) Does that prove it couldnt be possible?
Cant you see how ridiculous such an argument is (hence it is that fallacy)?
Its like me saying: 'Prove God created the universe by showing me a universe being created by God.'

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Me believing or not believing that ID is the answer has nothing to do with my presentation of evidence. Therefore, my position still isn't a case of Argument from Ignorance.

I'm beginning to think it more so.

TVOR

 

[kidnic]

Ha ha.. this is exactly what we mean. Lack of proof is not proof of an alternative. Read that fallacy statement again.

No let me save you the time.

Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." (p. 59)

No, my argument isn't based on the fact that it is not proven true, but on the principle that it is proven false. See, no Argument from Ignorance...

 

[Tawn]

No, my argument isn't based on the fact that it is not proven true, but on the principle that it is proven false. See, no Argument from Ignorance...

Then prove it false.

 

[Yerda]

No, my argument isn't based on the fact that it is not proven true, but on the principle that it is proven false. See, no Argument from Ignorance...

What is proven false?

 

[Pah]

No, my argument isn't based on the fact that it is not proven true, but on the principle that it is proven false. See, no Argument from Ignorance...

I want, not I insist, that evolution not be a topic of this thread. and I have seen no scietific evidence supplied by kidnic.

 

[Tawn]

No, my argument isn't based on the fact that it is not proven true, but on the principle that it is proven false. See, no Argument from Ignorance...

Even if you could prove natural occurance of DNA to be false (which you cannot).. it would still be an Argument from Ignorance.
You have to show reasonable evidence to support ID in order to prove it likely.

 

[painted wolf]

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?

wa:do

 

[The Voice of Reason]

so why is the formation of DNA with natual means impossible?
wa:do

Because he doesn't want it to be?

TVOR

 

[Tawn]

me >>>
'DNA cannot be created naturally'.
Where did you prove this was the case?
kidnic >>>
Basically, it can't, and hasn't.

I think youre right Voice.