The Evidence for ID THREAD!!

[Yerda]

2. You can't show any example of it being created without intelligence or design.

Can you illuminate the presence of both intelligence and design in every example of DNA (or other nucleic acid for that matter) being created?

3. We can then justly say that it required intelligence and design to be made.

I think you've misused the word required. Surely you meant sufficient?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

My analogy is simple and straightforward.

It may be simple, it may be straightforward, but it is not evidence of Intelligent Design.

1. You can create DNA with intelligence and design.

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.

3. We can then justly say that it required intelligence and design to be made.

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.

I am not drawing any "grand analogies" with God or anything of the sort. We are talking about Intelligent Design, and it is just what it says it is.

Please. Treat us as if we can tie our own shoes. We are all aware that Intelligent Design is a paper thin euphimism for "God did it". To pretend that Intelligent Design does not rely on God as the Prime Mover is either disengenuous, or an outright lie. Your choice.

TVOR

 

[Ceridwen018]

1. You can create DNA with intelligence and design.
2. You can't show any example of it being created without intelligence or design.
3. We can then justly say that it required intelligence and design to be made.

Check out post #137. I already explained to you how DNA is created outside of the lab, aka, naturally. You never replied to that post, by the by.

Now that that little issue has been ironed out, you may post the second bit of 'evidence' for Intelligent Design.

 

[kidnic]

Check out post #137. I already explained to you how DNA is created outside of the lab, aka, naturally. You never replied to that post, by the by.

Now that that little issue has been ironed out, you may post the second bit of 'evidence' for Intelligent Design.

DNA is not created in that example... it is copied...

Issue officially ironed out...

 

[kidnic]

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.

Here is what an argument from ignorance is:

Definition:

• Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. 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)

Examples:

• (i) Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they must exist.
  
  (ii) Since scientists cannot prove that global warming will occur, it probably won't.
  
  (iii) Fred said that he is smarter than Jill, but he didn't prove it, so it must be false.

Proof:

• Identify the proposition in question. Argue that it may be true even though we don't know whether it is or isn't.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ig.htm

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.

Please. Treat us as if we can tie our own shoes. We are all aware that Intelligent Design is a paper thin euphimism for "God did it". To pretend that Intelligent Design does not rely on God as the Prime Mover is either disengenuous, or an outright lie. Your choice.

:tsk: 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.

 

[Tawn]

Of course I am not assuming that. To illustrate what I am actually saying, here is a short story:


A man takes a look at the pen in his hand and wonders, "How is this ink made?" Before long, his mind wanders and starts wondering what types of naturally occuring inks there are and what they are like.

He postulates that the ink in his pen, since the company that made it has always used the finest ink for their pens, has come from a quality source.

He then looks on the Internet to find that there is indeed no naturally occurring substance that rivals the ink contained in his pen for quality and lasting use.

So he takes stock of what he sees, and makes an inferred assumption that the ink in the pen was made, and was not just harvested as is from the earth or some other natural source.

Now, mind you, the guy's assumption that the ink in the pen was created and not just harvested could be wrong, but all the evidence so far points to the fact that it was indeed manufactured.

Yet if the internet does not say that the ink is manufactured he cannot assume that either. Lets assume the manufacture/harvesting of this ink is a closely guarded secret. He may look at other ink manufacturers and see that they indeed artificially manufacture their own ink, yet that in no way affects the liklihood of the manufacture of this particular ink. Especially if those other ink manufacturers are essentially attempting to replicate this paticular ink being discussed.
To conclude that the ink must be manufactured is ridiculous. It is equally likely that the ink is naturally occuring, yet can be artificially manufactured.

In any event, the 'evidence' for ID is still nothing more than idle speculation and weak assumptions. Not withstanding that DNA hasnt been created by humans yet. So at this moment in time we cannot even make these assumptions.

 

[Tawn]

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.

No assumptions right?

Now, mind you, the guy's assumption that the ink in the pen was created and not just harvested could be wrong, but all the evidence so far points to the fact that it was indeed manufactured.

You admitted making an assumption in this example. Your argument fits that fallacy perfectly!!!.

Essentially your argument is:
Since you cannot prove that DNA was created naturally, it must be true that DNA was created intelligently.
(quite similar to 'Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they must exist.' Dont you think?)

There is not a better example of this fallacy. Perhaps you should actually read what you copy and paste.

 

[kidnic]

No assumptions right?
[/i]You admitted making an assumption in this example. Your argument fits that fallacy perfectly!!!.

I'm wasn't talking about any assumptions used to reach his conclusion, but I was merely calling his conclusion his assumption.

 

[Tawn]

I'm wasn't talking about any assumptions used to reach his conclusion, but I was merely calling his conclusion his assumption.

Really?

So he takes stock of what he sees, and makes an inferred assumption that the ink in the pen was made

 

[kidnic]

Really?
[/i]

Like I said, all I'm doing is referring to his conclusion as an assumption. The assumption that the ink was made is based on the whole argument, which contains no assumptions of its own.

 

[kidnic]

Essentially your argument is:
Since you cannot prove that DNA was created naturally, it must be true that DNA was created intelligently.
(quite similar to 'Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they must exist.' Dont you think?)

There is not a better example of this fallacy. Perhaps you should actually read what you copy and paste.

Stop arguing for me, since you aren't doing as good a job as me. You are putting words that I never said and saying that I was arguing things I never argued.

My argument is not this:
Since you cannot prove that DNA was created naturally, it must be true that DNA was created intelligently.

but this:
DNA cannot be created naturally, and it could eventually be created by humans, thus it must be true that DNA was created intelligently.

 

[Pah]

Like I said, all I'm doing is referring to his conclusion as an assumption. The assumption that the ink was made is based on the whole argument, which contains no assumptions of its own.

Would that be an assumption within an assumption?


But I still have a question outstanding. Who is the Intelligent Designer if not God?

 

[Tawn]

Like I said, all I'm doing is referring to his conclusion as an assumption. The assumption that the ink was made is based on the whole argument, which contains no assumptions of its own.

So if there are no assumptions, there must be fairly good evidence and proof that the ink in the pen was manufactured.
Yet the only reason the man is to think that the ink is manufactured is because other inks are. That my friend is an assumption. He has no evidence to actually validly suggest that that particular ink is manufactured or harvested. He is assuming that the ink is manufactured because other inks are.

Your argument fits the fallacy so wonderfully I cant see why you think it doesnt. You might as well argue black is white.

 

[Tawn]

Stop arguing for me, since you aren't doing as good a job as me. You are putting words that I never said and saying that I was arguing things I never argued.

My argument is not this:
Since you cannot prove that DNA was created naturally, it must be true that DNA was created intelligently.

but this:
DNA cannot be created naturally, and it could eventually be created by humans, thus it must be true that DNA was created intelligently.

..and how is that so different from what I said?
You just added a pointless line about humans. Whether humans can or cannot create DNA is to be quite honest, irrelevant.

 

[Tawn]

but this:
DNA cannot be created naturally, and it could eventually be created by humans, thus it must be true that DNA was created intelligently.

Hang on, I noticed something else.
'DNA cannot be created naturally'.
Where did you prove this was the case?

 

[kidnic]

Hang on, I noticed something else.
'DNA cannot be created naturally'.
Where did you prove this was the case?

Basically, it can't, and hasn't.

 

[kidnic]

So if there are no assumptions, there must be fairly good evidence and proof that the ink in the pen was manufactured.
Yet the only reason the man is to think that the ink is manufactured is because other inks are. That my friend is an assumption.

No, the reason he thinks the ink in his pen was manufactured is because ink of that kind can't be havested raw from natural sources.

 

[kidnic]

Would that be an assumption within an assumption?

Nope. There are no 'assumptions' to hold that concluding assumption, therefore you have the conclusion, which I referred to as an assumption, contained in nothing more or less than an argument without assumptions.

 

[Tawn]

Basically, it can't, and hasn't.

Ah of course, because you said so! Thank you for educating me.

No, the reason he thinks the ink in his pen was manufactured is because ink of that kind can't be havested raw from natural sources.

Yet you didnt say that in your story. You just said:

He then looks on the Internet to find that there is indeed no naturally occurring substance that rivals the ink contained in his pen for quality and lasting use.

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.

 

[Pah]

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.