The Evidence for ID THREAD!!

[Passerbye]

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.

It's no fun if you end the game when it has just begun. I am not just posting this for the fun of it. I have a point, but I will not list the point until the point has been reached.

 

[Tawn]

I have a point, but I will not list the point until the point has been reached.

I know you want Deut to do this.. but I dont think he will bite...

>>>We can reasonably assume that Mozart did compose that music because there is substantial evidence supporting that claim.

 

[Passerbye]

Bah thats going to take me some time.. youll have to wait..

That's fine by me. I'm in no hurry.

However, I would ask the exact same back to you. You are trying to convince us of ID are you not?

Convince? Not realy. I don't have any hope for that at all. I am simply posting the arguments on the subjects. Convincing is not my point. Showing you that the posibilities of Evolution and Creation are at least very close, if not greater, in creation. As for my opinions on the essay, that will take some time as well.

 

[Passerbye]

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

We can also reasonably assume that he was insane. In looking at it from this perspective he could have done many things to aquire the music he "wrote". Could he not?

 

[Tawn]

We can also reasonably assume that he was insane. In looking at it from this perspective he could have done many things to aquire the music he "wrote". Could he not?

Yes he might have. However, the evidence strongly suggests he composed it himself.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

One might suspect that such an effort would benefit from understanding what "argumentum ad ignorantiam" means. Questions such as "But how do you know that Mozart did it." clearly indicate an understanding deficit.

 

[Passerbye]

However, the evidence strongly suggests he composed it himself.

What evidence? His claim that he did. Family claims, hand writing, things of that sort. Are these the evidences. The same evidence can be given for the Bible.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What evidence? His claim that he did. Family claims, hand writing, things of that sort. Are these the evidences. The same evidence can be given for the Bible.

See what I mean. :biglaugh:

 

[Passerbye]

Questions such as "But how do you know that Mozart did it." clearly indicate an understanding deficit.

I think it falls in perfect alignment with "But how do you know that God did it." No understanding defect in this, I don't think.

 

[Passerbye]

See what I mean. :biglaugh:

No, I do not. Please inform me on what you are refering to.

 

[Tawn]

What evidence? His claim that he did. Family claims, hand writing, things of that sort. Are these the evidences.

When are you going to get to your point? Or do I have to spend ages scouring the internet for specific evidence that Mozart composed music?
Yes his claim is some evidence, claims by friends and family, claims by people who discussed music with him, people who witnessed his composing. Handwriting, intermediate stages of development - I assume he showed people work in progress..

The same evidence can be given for the Bible.

Are we discussing how 'Mozart composed Music' is or is not an argument from ignorance?
Please remember that this line of inquiry started with this:

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

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think it falls in perfect alignment with "But how do you know that God did it." No understanding defect in this, I don't think.

You've shown you ability to think many things without reason. What you have not done is show anyone what this diversion has to do with the Argument from Ignorance, and that failure is the direct and obvious result of your ignorance surrounding this fallacy.

 

[Passerbye]

Yes his claim is some evidence, claims by friends and family, claims by people who discussed music with him, people who witnessed his composing. Handwriting, intermediate stages of development - I assume he showed people work in progress..

All can be brought about in different ways. They prove nothing acording to the arguments presented.

Are we discussing how 'Mozart composed Music' is or is not an argument from ignorance?
Please remember that this line of inquiry started with this:

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

My line of inquiry was prepared long before that was posted. I simply waited for an opportune time. And, yes we are, in a way. That argument has been used from the begining of my posts, I was just trying to show how it can invalidate almost any such arguments and thus doesn't belong here.

 

[kidnic]

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.

No... no no...

If proven to be false, then my argument would then make perfect logical sense.

If DNA can be created by intelligence, and it has been shown that it cannot possibly be made without it, then DNA must have been made by intelligence. Simple logic, fellows...

 

[Passerbye]

You've shown you ability to think many things without reason. What you have not done is show anyone what this diversion has to do with the Argument from Ignorance, and that failure is the direct and obvious result of your ignorance surrounding this fallacy.

If you say so, but please correct my "ignorance" if you are to say I have it.

 

[Tawn]

All can be brought about in different ways. They prove nothing acording to the arguments presented.

Nothing is irrefutable. Mozart composed music. Its likely and probable because a lot of evidence suggests it was so. Absolute proof is impossible.

My line of inquiry was prepared long before that was posted. I simply waited for an opportune time. And, yes we are, in a way. That argument has been used from the begining of my posts, I was just trying to show how it can invalidate almost any such arguments and thus doesn't belong here.

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

Ok, issue No1.
Is that or is that not a statement which is postulated without an Argument from Ignorance being stated?
Issue No2.
Deut and Voice have referred to some of your posts and kidnics as arguments from ignorance because you have in certain posts tried to prove ID only by trying to disprove evolution and abiogenesis. Disproof of alternative theories is not proof of your theory.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you say so, but please correct my "ignorance" if you are to say I have it.

From Post 209 ...

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.

Please show me where anyone has at any time suggested that:

the proposition Mozart composed music is true "simply on the basis that it has not been proved false".​

 

[Passerbye]

The statement "Mozart composed music" states that without a shadow of a doubt Mozart composed music. This cannot be since you stated:

Nothing is irrefutable. Mozart composed music. Its likely and probable because a lot of evidence suggests it was so. Absolute proof is impossible.

If it is imposible then the only way to come to a positive conclution is to look at the data and see what best fits. I see that the Bible best fits. You see that evolution best fits. I see that the Bible stays the same and yet has not been proven wrong. I see that the reason evolution fits is that science is ever changing and adapting and thus is unreliable. This is what is postulated. I know you don't agree with my opinions, but do you agree with the facts listed here?

 

[Passerbye]

Please show me where anyone has at any time suggested that:

the proposition Mozart composed music is true "simply on the basis that it has not been proved false".​

​

Please show me where anyone has at any time suggested that:

the proposition Mozart didnot compose music is false "simply on the basis that it has not been proven true".​

 

[Tawn]

No... no no...
If proven to be false, then my argument would then make perfect logical sense.

Agreed. It would make sense, but it would go no way towards proving it.

In the same way that if you proved Mozart didnt compose music, it would make sense that he might have stolen the music from someone - but it doesnt prove he stole it from somewhere.

If DNA can be created by intelligence, and it has been shown that it cannot possibly be made without it, then DNA must have been made by intelligence. Simple logic, fellows...

Showing that DNA cannot possibly be made without intelligence is not the same as showing that DNA could not have occured naturally.
Also, 'with intelligence' is a human concept.. and we assume such an idea is a (true) or (false) statement. Something is intelligent or it is not.
However, is an animal intelligent? Is a brick intelligent? I would say an animal has more intelligence than a brick, but less than a human. I would say that (the idea of) God probably has more intelligence than a Human.
So even if you could prove (which again you cannot) that DNA cannot be produced without intelligence, I would have to ask - how much intelligence is required to make DNA? If humans can make it, very little one would assume (in comparison to God)... so it is therefore entirely feasible for an alien race to have created it. Or maybe even a retarded space faring creature with some intellect but not a lot. Disproof of non-intelligent DNA creation does not prove God.