'Easy to be an atheist if you agnore science' [moved]

[quatona]

How would we differenciate between intelligent and unintelligent design?

 

[Radrook]

That experiment was a raging success. They accomplished exactly what they set out to do. Care to try again?

LOL! I never claimed that this test was an attempt at creating life. I said it is a relevant article.
But here are two videos in reference to it and how it is relevant to the abiogenesis issue from the creationist standpoint.

Urey Miller Test

Urey Miller Debunked

 

[Radrook]

How would we differenciate between intelligent and unintelligent design?

Same way you always do.


http://debidash.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/three_monkeys.jpg

 

[46AND2]

LOL! I never claimed that this test was an attempt at creating life. I said it is a relevant article.
But here are two videos in reference to it and how it is relevant to the abiogenesis issue from the creationist standpoint.

It doesn't matter whether you claimed it was an attempt to create life or not...you DID claim that scientists experienced "failures" which should have falsified abiogenesis. I'm waiting for an example of such a failure.

That said, the first video you posted stated "The Miller-Urey experiment was a total failure. It never produced any life..." in the first 10 seconds!

 

[bhsmte]

It doesn't matter whether you claimed it was an attempt to create life or not...you DID claim that scientists experienced "failures" which should have falsified abiogenesis. I'm waiting for an example of such a failure.

That said, the first video you posted stated "The Miller-Urey experiment was a total failure. It never produced any life..." in the first 10 seconds!

I'm not sure he even keeps track of all the stuff he says.

 

[JCFantasy23]

MOD HAT ON

Please remember to get along!

I see some flaming brewing on this thread...

Please consider this a reminder to not flame and stay on topic.

Further issues may result in thread cleans, closes or other staff actions.


The full list of site rules can be found here.

MOD HAT OFF
​

 

[quatona]

Same way you always do.

Which is the way you always differenciate between intelligent und unintelligent design?

 

[Radrook]

Which is the way you always differenciate between intelligent und unintelligent design?

You know, the way you always do.

 

[quatona]

You know, the way you always do.

For someone who considers "ID" a scientific idea, you have amazingly little to offer when it comes to the sceintific basics.
Nevermind.

 

[Radrook]

For someone who considers "ID" a scientific idea, you have amazingly little to offer when it comes to the sceintific basics.
Nevermind.

Please keep in mind that being scientific does not absolve the scientist from the responsibility of being scientifically logical. Indeed, if the scientist discards logic, then his conclusions will not be scientific at all. Calling such conclusions scientific, while they make a mockery of logic demonstrates that either the person really doesn't know what the scientific method entails or else that despite knowing what it entails he chooses to ignore it. That is what is called quackery.

 

[quatona]

Please keep in mind that being scientific does not absolve the scientist from the responsibility of being scientifically logical. Indeed, if the scientist discards logic, then his conclusions will not be scientific at all. Calling such conclusions scientific, while they make a mockery of logic demonstrates that either the person really doesn't know what the scientific method entails or else that despite knowing what it entails he chooses to ignore it. That is what is called quackery.

Well, since you are unable and/or unwilling to provide a method to reliably distinguish "Intelligent Design" from its opposite "Unintelligent Design" or "mere design", your hypothesis certainly doesn´t lend itself to scientific investigation, to begin with.

 

[Radrook]

Well, since you are unable and/or unwilling to provide a method to reliably distinguish "Intelligent Design" from its opposite "Unintelligent Design" or "mere design", your hypothesis certainly doesn´t lend itself to scientific investigation, to begin with.

That's because you obviously don't really know what scientific investigation involves. Otherwise you would not be arguing against its very foundation, cogent reasoning. You see, you are trying to drive a wedge between cogent reasoning and the scientific method. But that is an impossibility because the scientific method depends on cogent reasoning. Remove cogent reasoning and whatever the scientist declares becomes drivel by default. If indeed you are unaware of this then you are really not qualified to discuss the subject.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN

William A. Dembski

Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause? To see what’s at stake, consider Mount Rushmore. The evidence for Mount Rushmore’s design is direct—eyewitnesses saw the sculptor Gutzon Borglum spend the better part of his life designing and building this structure. But what if there were no direct evidence for Mount Rushmore’s design? What if humans went extinct and aliens, visiting the earth, discovered Mount Rushmore in substantially the same condition as it is now?

In that case, what about this rock formation would provide convincing circumstantial evidence that it was due to a designing intelligence and not merely to wind and erosion? Designed objects like Mount Rushmore exhibit characteristic features or patterns that point to an intelligence. Such features or patterns constitute signs of intelligence. Proponents of intelligent design, known as design theorists, purport to study such signs formally, rigorously, and scientifically. Intelligent design may therefore be defined as the science that studies signs of intelligence.

 

[SteveB28]

That's because you obviously don't really know what scientific investigation involves. Otherwise you would not be arguing against its very foundation, cogent reasoning. You see, you are trying to drive a wedge between cogent reasoning and the scientific method. But that is an impossibility because the scientific method depends on cogent reasoning. Remove cogent reasoning and whatever the scientist declares becomes drivel by default. If indeed you are unaware of this then you are really not qualified to discuss the subject.

Not going to answer his challenge then?



.

 

[quatona]

That's because you obviously don't really know what scientific investigation involves. Otherwise you would not be arguing against its very foundation, cogent reasoning.

I´m not arguing against cogent reasoning. I am asking a question that would allow investigating the idea "Intelligent Design" by means of reasoning.

I guess in the best case it will turn out that the "intelligent" in "intelligent design" is redundant.

 

[Radrook]

I´m not arguing against cogent reasoning. I am asking a question that would allow investigating the idea "Intelligent Design" by means of reasoning.

I guess in the best case it will turn out that the "intelligent" in "intelligent design" is redundant.

But that's just the problem. In your argument, which seems to involve an assumption that ID is against scientific investigation or against the scientific method, you argue against cogent reasoning by attempting to nullify the value of the inductive leap which leads to a premise which leads to a conclusion. You offer absolutely NOTHING to refute that argument that the ID inductive leap is a justifiable one and in that manner oppose the very foundation which leads to a formulation of hypotheses and theories. In short, you argue against the scientific method while claiming to defend it against those who are actually defending it from you.

 

[quatona]

But that's just the problem. In your argument, which seems to involve an assumption that ID is against scientific investigation or against the scientific method,

Better not address your own assumptions ("seems"). I didn´t make an argument, I just asked you a valid question.
You can´t answer it.
Noted.

 

[Radrook]

Better not address your own assumptions ("seems"). I didn´t make an argument, I just asked you a valid question.
You can´t answer it.
Noted.

You question is nonsensical.

 

[Radrook]

Better not address your own assumptions ("seems"). I didn´t make an argument, I just asked you a valid question.
You can´t answer it.
Noted.

But since your question demands that I imagine you lobotomized it is really no question at all.

 

[quatona]

You question is nonsensical.

Where I come from it makes perfect sense to ask for the definition of the keyterm before I start considering the claim.

 

[bhsmte]

But that's just the problem. In your argument, which seems to involve an assumption that ID is against scientific investigation or against the scientific method, you argue against cogent reasoning by attempting to nullify the value of the inductive leap which leads to a premise which leads to a conclusion. You offer absolutely NOTHING to refute that argument that the ID inductive leap is a justifiable one and in that manner oppose the very foundation which leads to a formulation of hypotheses and theories. In short, you argue against the scientific method while claiming to defend it against those who are actually defending it from you.

There is no assumption that ID is not considered science. Without a scientific definition and without a falsifiable test, it CAN NOT be science.

You can deny this reality all you like, but it wont' make it go away.