• 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!

The Evidence for ID THREAD!!

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Passerbye said:
The statement "Mozart composed music" states that without a shadow of a doubt Mozart composed music.
(a) No, it does not. (b) What does this have to do with the argument from ignorance?
 

kidnic

Member
I see no one has responded to my post #234, and I would hate for it to be overlooked... except, of course, that it was overlooked on pupose. In that case, it is perfectly fine.
 

kidnic

Member
Tawn said:
Agreed. It would make sense, but it would go no way towards proving it.
...
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.
Nah, like I said before, I'm not talking about proving that God created anything, I'm talking about evidence for Intelligent Design. There you go again putting words in my mouth.

It *would* go towards proving it, because I am not giving evidence for God creating anything, but rather just evidence for ID.

We also know that we as humans currently do not posses enough intelligence to make DNA at this point. We can therefore conclude that more intelligence than modern humans posess would be needed.
 

Tawn

Active Member
Passerbye said:
The statement "Mozart composed music" states that without a shadow of a doubt Mozart composed music. This cannot be since you stated:
Actually the statement wasnt postulated with a level of certainty..
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.
Agree upto this point
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?
Actually because science is willing to accept the possibility that it could be wrong it lends itself to being more open to the truth.
 

Tawn

Active Member
kidnic said:
Nah, like I said before, I'm not talking about proving that God created anything, I'm talking about evidence for Intelligent Design. There you go again putting words in my mouth.
Its very hard to know what youre saying... I have to guess.. sorry if im sometimes inaccurate. Intelligent design is generally defined as creationism.. and hence God creating life.. it is natural for me to assume you are talking about God when you refer to ID.

Ok lets get back to this then.. if you could prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that DNA cannot be created without intelligence, then of course (since we are dealing with a true/false statement) we could reliably state that some level of intelligence is required to create DNA. There is no other option because we have defined what 'intelligence is' and it either falls into that abstract category or it doesnt.
It *would* go towards proving it, because I am not giving evidence for God creating anything, but rather just evidence for ID.

We also know that we as humans currently do not posses enough intelligence to make DNA at this point. We can therefore conclude that more intelligence than modern humans posess would be needed.
lol, we have to get more intelligent to be able to create DNA? I think youre confused about the difference between knowledge and intelligence. There are animals significantly less intelligent than humans which can do things and create things we cannot. If your vast intellect was instantly transported into a spider would you be able to spin a web? Yet you do maintain that you are more intelligent than a spider?
Knowledge is about experience. Intellect is your ability to process knowledge.
It wouldnt be likewise clever to say: Therefore it must be something with more knowledge that created the first DNA.. not more, just different.

Besides which, i would just love to see you try to prove that non-intelligent creation of DNA is absolutely impossible.
 

Tawn

Active Member
kidnic said:
I see no one has responded to my post #234, and I would hate for it to be overlooked... except, of course, that it was overlooked on pupose. In that case, it is perfectly fine.
You have obviously missed post #240. Perhaps it is you who is overlooking me on purpose? :D
(I know you responded to this later... but still perhaps you are expecting instantaneous responses? Be patient)
 

kidnic

Member
Tawn said:
Its very hard to know what youre saying... I have to guess.. sorry if im sometimes inaccurate. Intelligent design is generally defined as creationism.. and hence God creating life.. it is natural for me to assume you are talking about God when you refer to ID.

Ok lets get back to this then.. if you could prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that DNA cannot be created without intelligence, then of course (since we are dealing with a true/false statement) we could reliably state that some level of intelligence is required to create DNA. There is no other option because we have defined what 'intelligence is' and it either falls into that abstract category or it doesnt.

lol, we have to get more intelligent to be able to create DNA? I think youre confused about the difference between knowledge and intelligence.

Besides which, i would just love to see you try to prove that non-intelligent creation of DNA is absolutely impossible.

(I know you responded to this later... but still perhaps you are expecting instantaneous responses? Be patient)
Nah, naturally I just assumed that since he were online, and he chose not to respond to my post and instead reply to Pass, that he must've overlooked my post, or simply didn't respond.

Thank you very much though, for eventually agreeing with my argument, and actually giving a try at understanding my point of view.

Perhaps knowledge would have been a better word, but that is merely arguing about words and not concepts.

I would also love to show you that it is imposible, however, since my break at work is coming up soon, it will have to wait until I get back into my office.
 

Tawn

Active Member
kidnic said:
Thank you very much though, for eventually agreeing with my argument, and actually giving a try at understanding my point of view.
Yes, half the trouble though is realising what exactly each of us is trying to argue.
I would also love to show you that it is imposible, however, since my break at work is coming up soon, it will have to wait until I get back into my office.
Ill look forward to it.
 

Passerbye

Member
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.
Halleluah, I tried to make this point a long time ago. Thus the coin analogy came about to rebuttle it.
(a) No, it does not. (b) What does this have to do with the argument from ignorance?
(A) You could be correct. (B) If the statement is stated as positivly true then then the argument from ignorance comes about since that would say that another theory could not be true, even though no proof exists either way, that I know of.
One foolishness at a time. You've had more than your fair share.
There is more than enough to go around. A fair share implies that there is a limit to the amount of foolishness allowed. No limit has been set that I can see. Would you like to set the limit?
Actually the statement wasnt postulated with a level of certainty..

It seemed to me to be presented with 100% certainty, by the manner it was presented and the argument it was presented to rebuttal.
Actually because science is willing to accept the possibility that it could be wrong it lends itself to being more open to the truth.

It also lends itself to be more open to a lie.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Passerbye said:
If the statement is stated as positivly true then then the argument from ignorance comes about since that would say that another theory could not be true, even though no proof exists either way, that I know of.
No, it does not.
 

Tawn

Active Member
Passerbye said:
Halleluah, I tried to make this point a long time ago. Thus the coin analogy came about to rebuttle it.
Excellent we are making progress.
The reason the coin analogy was used (if i remember correctly) was because we were thinking you were disproving one particular method of natural occurance of life and everything.. when in theory there could be an uncountable number of alternative naturalistic thoeries on how life came about... which we havent thought up yet ;).
If you can do the impossible and disprove all naturalistic explanations - even the ones not demonstrated, Id be amazed.. but if we are working on that hypothetical situation, then yes proving all naturalistic theories impossible would prove ID (in the sense that it could be little or a lot of intellect required)
(A) You could be correct. (B) If the statement is stated as positivly true then then the argument from ignorance comes about since that would say that another theory could not be true, even though no proof exists either way, that I know of.
Well it depends on how you postulate that something can be absolutely true. If you say that mozart must have composed because all other theories we know of are false.. that would be the fallacy (the first half).

"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."

Assuming all other possibilities to be false becauseyou have found one to be absolutely true does not come under this fallacy. However, if you were to say that mozart didnt steal the music because nobody has proved he did - that would fall under the fallacy..
There is more than enough to go around. A fair share implies that there is a limit to the amount of foolishness allowed. No limit has been set that I can see. Would you like to set the limit?
No thank you.. lets not make this personal (thats to everyone).
It seemed to me to be presented with 100% certainty, by the manner it was presented and the argument it was presented to rebuttal.
Well I disagree, but I can see why you might think so..
It also lends itself to be more open to a lie.
Not at all. It is as open to lies as religion is.

Time for another analogy. :D
Lets say I think of a number between 1-10. You have to guess it. You immediately try to guess based on my expression and whatnot.. and guess 9.
Likewise another person guesses also and says 3.
Over time as my expression and whatnot changes perhaps you think you can see more information. However, you are unwilling to change your mind and stick with 9.
The other guy keeps changing his mind as he gathers more and more information..

Now some of the extra information may lead him in the wrong direction - but at least he is analysing it and not ignoring it like you are. When I finally ask for an answer who is more likely to be correct? The person who studied me for a short while and came to a snap decision, or the person who considered the information for much longer?
 

Tawn

Active Member
Tawn said:
If you can do the impossible and disprove all naturalistic explanations - even the ones not demonstrated, Id be amazed..
Actually, just thinking, the only way you could do this is by proving that it must have required intellect to create DNA/life etc.. which is what we have been asking of you.. hence proof for ID.
 

Passerbye

Member
Carl Sagan(spelling?) estimated the probability of life from non-life was 10 to the 2 billionth power. Probability scientists say that anything that is 10 to the 15th power is virtually impossible, and 10 to the 50th power IS impossible. That's only 50. Can we still have been created by chance??
What do you think of this statement that I found?
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Passerbye said:
Carl Sagan(spelling?) estimated the probability of life from non-life was 10 to the 2 billionth power. Probability scientists say that anything that is 10 to the 15th power is virtually impossible, and 10 to the 50th power IS impossible. That's only 50. Can we still have been created by chance??
What do you think of this statement that I found?
I think it is typical that it is offered without context or reference.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Passerbye said:
I was not talking about your reference, but the Sagan reference. What did Sagan say, where did he say it, what was the context? All you've shown is that others are as irresponsible with their quotes as you.

Perhaps I can help ...

Even Carl Sagan has been cited, from a book he edited, Communication with Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (MIT Press, 1973), a record of the proceedings of a conference on SETI. Sagan himself presented a paper at that conference, in which he reports (pp. 45-6) the odds against a specific human genome being assembled by chance as 1 in 10^2,000,000,000 (in other words, the genome of a specific person, and not just any human). As a build-up to this irrelevant statistic he states that a simple protein "might consist" of 100 amino acids (for each of which there are 20 "biological varieties") for a chance of random assembly, for one specific protein of this sort, of 1 in 10^130. He uses these statistics as a rhetorical foil for the fact that no human genome is assembled at random, nor did life have to start with only one possible protein of a particular, specific type, but that "the preferential replication, the preferential reproduction of organisms, through the natural selection of small mutations, acts as a kind of probability sieve, a probability selector," so that one must account for natural selection in estimating the odds of any alien species existing elsewhere in the universe, and not just calculate the odds of random assembly like the examples he just gave. Nevertheless, Sagan's words are used against him by Christians who grab at the numbers without paying attention to their context, or indeed to the fact that Sagan uses extremely simplified equations and assumptions.

- see Addendum B: Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept?
In brief, the quote is, unsurprisingly, a despicable distortion. How interesting that you would propagate it.
 

kidnic

Member
Tawn said:
Ill look forward to it.
Alright, here's some:

Furthermore, research has documented that "unless the origin of life took place extremely rapidly (in less than 100 years), we conclude that a high temperature origin of life... cannot involve adenine, uracil, guanine or cytosine" because these compounds break down far too fast in a warm environment. In a hydrothermal environment, most of these compounds could neither form in the first place, nor exist for a significant amount of time (Levy and Miller, p. 7933).
As Levy and Miller explain, "the rapid rates of hydrolysis of the nucleotide bases A,U,G and T at temperatures much above 0° Celsius would present a major problem in the accumulation of these presumed essential components on the early earth" (p. 7933).
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/abiogenesis.html

Furthermore, the authors found that, given the minimal time perceived to be necessary for evolution to occur, cytosine is unstable even at temperatures as cold as 0º C. Without cytosine neither DNA or RNA can exist.
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
According to this, there is absolutely no chance that the chemicals created by "random chance occurences" could even exist long enough to aid in the production of DNA.
 
Top