Consider This Article

RealityCheck01 · Jun 14, 2018

Anguspure said:
In so far as Intelligent design certainly does not fulfill the Scientistic Dogma of Naturalism then I guess it is not Scientistic, you are correct.
However in so far as it employs the common knowledge of the best explanation for design where it becomes apparant certainly fulfills the definition of science, if science can be defined in terms of things that we know to be true about the natural world.

15 June 2018 Anguspure: A "Scientistic Dogma of Naturalism" lie
There is no such dogma. There is a rational assumption that observed phenomena are natural unless there is evidence otherwise. For example, we detect the first pulsar and the first notation on the images is actually LGM-1 (Little Green Men)! Then we see that spinning neutron stars matches the observations of pulsars. No LGM needed.
Evolution was explained for over a century without any LGM.

15 June 2018 Anguspure: A lie that ID uses "common knowledge of the best explanation for design".
That common knowledge is that anything we see being designed or know is designed, is designed, e.g. a car manufacturer making a car or the computer you are using.
That common knowledge is that anything we see with a trademark is designed.
That common knowledge is that anything that has an explanation that does not include design, is not designed , e.g. crystals, snowflakes and living beings.

15 June 2018 Anguspure: A "in terms of things that we know to be true about the natural world" lie about ID.
There is nothing in the natural world that tells us that it has to be designed.

AV1611VET · Jun 14, 2018

pitabread said:
Sure, but only when we can infer or outright demonstrate how something is designed and manufactured.

Like the Titanic? Hindenburg? Thalidomide? Challenger? Deepwater Horizon? Three Mile Island? the South Fork Dam? the Florida International University walkway? Apollo I? Chernobyl? L'Aquila? the Edmund Fitzgerald?

Anguspure · Jun 14, 2018

DogmaHunter said:
What's your objective method for detecting design?

High levels of functional coherence are best explained by the influence of a designer.

pitabread · Jun 14, 2018

AV1611VET said:
Like the Titanic? Hindenburg? Thalidomide? Challenger? Deepwater Horizon? Three Mile Island? the South Fork Dam? the Florida International University walkway? Apollo I? Chernobyl? L'Aquila?

Yes, I already know you like to post irrelevant examples of disasters that have nothing to do with the context of the comment you were responding to.

Do you have anything to say relevant to the fact that the only time human beings readily identify design is when we either have a known and/or inferred mechanism by which the thing in question is designed and manufactured?

pitabread · Jun 14, 2018

Anguspure said:
High levels of functional coherence are best explained by the influence of a designer.

Except that nobody uses vague buzz-phrases like "high levels of functional coherence" when identifying design.

AV1611VET · Jun 14, 2018

pitabread said:
Do you have anything to say relevant to the fact that the only time human beings readily identify design is when we either have a known and/or inferred mechanism by which the thing in question is designed and manufactured?

High levels of functional coherence are best explained by the influence of a designer.

Anguspure · Jun 14, 2018

pitabread said:
What makes you say that?

The evidence.

Not sure how you can compare a (relatively speaking) limited experiment of single-celled organisms in a highly controlled environment for only ~25 years versus an entire ecosystem of millions of species evolving over 2 million years.

On top of that, the E.Coli experiment has resulted in a number of considerable changes to the populations even within the limited scope of that experiment.

Well, given that the environment in the experiment is deliberately manipulated to heighten the liklihood of a positive outcome for ND, then there is a greater liklihood in the experiment than there is in the natural world, where even benficial mutations might be lost because of many other competing factors.

pitabread · Jun 14, 2018

Anguspure said:
The evidence.

What evidence? Be specific, now.

Well, given that the environment in the experiment is deliberately manipulated to heighten the liklihood of a positive outcome for ND

What do you mean by this exactly? If you're going to make an accusation of an experiment being manipulated for a particular outcome, you'd best have something to back that up.

then there is a greater liklihood in the experiment than there is in the natural world, where even benficial mutations might be lost because of many other competing factors.

Any support for this assertion?

pitabread · Jun 14, 2018

AV1611VET said:
High levels of functional coherence are best explained by the influence of a designer.

So... no. Got it.

Speedwell · Jun 14, 2018

Anguspure said:
High levels of functional coherence are best explained by the influence of a designer.

Then why don't we use that criterion when looking for design in objects which are possibly man-made?

pitabread · Jun 14, 2018

Speedwell said:
Then why don't we use that criterion when looking for design in objects which are possibly man-made?

That's what I would like to know. All these attempts by ID proponents to come up with 'design detection' ideas seem to have zero real-world use.

Anguspure · Jun 14, 2018

Speedwell said:
In the absence of evidence to the contrary it remains a reasonable hypothesis. On the level of material causality (the kind that science studies), God appears to have created the universe as a self-contained system. Why could not that include abiogenesis?

There is evidence for design, and it does not require us to entertain the possibility of non-material causality.

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/05/w...ion-scientists-reach-literally-for-the-stars/

Anguspure · Jun 14, 2018

Speedwell said:
Then why don't we use that criterion when looking for design in objects which are possibly man-made?

We do...a rose by any other name...

How do you think SETI will establish that the communication they recieve is of intelligent origin?

pitabread · Jun 14, 2018

Anguspure said:
How do you think SETI will establish that the communication they recieve is of intelligent origin?

SETI has nothing to do with "functional coherence" or any other ID buzz-phrases.

SETI is about searching for narrow-band radio transmissions for which the only known source is artificially manufactured radio transmitters. In other words, scientists are inferring how the transmissions would be created and then attempting to detect the output of those transmitters.

In order to have an equivalent for detecting design in biology, you'd first need to infer how the designer created or modified biological life forms on this planet. But you don't have that, do you?

Anguspure · Jun 14, 2018

RealityCheck01 said:
15 June 2018 Anguspure: A lying "what is the method" question and nonsense.
He knows that we have several credible scientific mechanisms for abiogenesis and that the evidence is not currently enough to select any one or more of them.
Abiogenesis

11 June 2018 Anguspure: A lie that evolution explains nothing when it explains a lot.
11 June 2018 Anguspure: Parrots a "biological diversity cannot occur in 3.8 billion years" Behe delusion
13 June 2018 Anguspure: A "an unintelligent framework says nothing" lie about evolution and its evidence.
11 June 2018 Anguspure: Abiogenesis ignorance.
13 June 2018 Anguspure: Bits of ignorance about abiogenesis.
13 June 2018 Anguspure: A probable lie that abiogenesis has been falsified and shown to be false daily (sources?).
13 June 2018 Anguspure: A probable lie that ID explains common descent (sources?).
13 June 2018 Anguspure: A lying "A specific example of this happening is......???" question.
13 June 2018 Anguspure: A lie that the concepts in modern evolution make it "only more implausible".
13 June 2018 Anguspure: Shoots himself in the foot with a philosopher lecturing that evolution "makes a mockery of reason itself" [when the same applies to ID].
14 June 2018 Anguspure: An evolution "hides the definition" of abiogenesis lie when he has knows evolution is separate from abiogenesis.
14 June 2018 Anguspure: Irrelevant "Abracadabra" gibberish when abiogenesis is published science.
14 June 2018 Anguspure: A "kind" mistake and a speciation is a "complete fantasy in the real world" lie.
14 June 2018 Anguspure: Unthinking parroting of Darwin's finches lies from the creationist/ID Discovery Institute.

I have only seen incredible, implausible hypotheses.

RealityCheck01 · Jun 14, 2018

AV1611VET said:
Like the Titanic?...

Yes - these are examples of bad design . Just like the perceived "design" explained in ID is their evidence of a bad or even evil designer.

RealityCheck01 · Jun 14, 2018

Anguspure said:
High levels of functional coherence are best explained by the influence of a designer.

Without a source or evidence this is at best a fantasy and possibly another lie to add to your track record.

RealityCheck01 · Jun 14, 2018

Anguspure said:
Well, given that the environment in the experiment is deliberately manipulated to heighten the liklihood of a positive outcome for ND, ....

15 June 2018 Anguspure: A probable "deliberately manipulated" lie about the E. coli long term evolution experiment.
No sources.
The experiment is uncontrolled mutations of the bacteria.
The purpose of the experiment is not the "positive outcome" he is probably talking about (Evolution of aerobic citrate usage in one population). The experiment is to study those uncontrolled mutations (relative fitness, cell size, colony morphology (photographic), and molecular genetics) and to have the ability to branch off from stored generations to see what differences can happen. The
What happens in the experiment looks like standard bacteria cultivation

Methods
The 12 populations are maintained in a 37 °C (99 °F) incubator in Lenski's laboratory at Michigan State University. Each day, 1% of each population is transferred to a flask of fresh DM25 growth medium. The dilution means that each population experiences 6.64 generations, or doublings, each day. Large, representative samples of each population are frozen with glycerol as a cryoprotectant at 500-generation (75-day) intervals. The bacteria in these samples remain viable, and can be revived at any time. This collection of samples is referred to as the "frozen fossil record", and provides a history of the evolution of each population through the entire experiment. The populations are also regularly screened for changes in mean fitness, and supplemental experiments are regularly performed to study interesting developments in the populations.[14] As of April 2016[update], the E. coli populations have been under study for over 64,500 generations, and are thought to have undergone enough spontaneous mutations that every possible single point mutation in the E. coli genome has occurred multiple times.[5]

Overview of the E. coli long-term evolution experiment

RealityCheck01 · Jun 14, 2018

Anguspure said:
I have only seen incredible, implausible hypotheses.

15 June 2018 Anguspure: A "seen incredible, implausible hypotheses" lie when he has been given scientifically credible, plausible mechanisms based on chemistry, geology and biology.
Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis is studied through a combination of molecular biology, paleontology, astrobiology and biochemistry, and aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life.[12] The study of abiogenesis can be geophysical, chemical, or biological,[13] with more recent approaches attempting a synthesis of all three,[14] as life arose under conditions that are strikingly different from those on Earth today. Life functions through the specialized chemistry of carbon and water and is largely based upon four key families of chemicals: lipids (fatty cell walls), carbohydrates (sugars, cellulose), amino acids (protein metabolism), and nucleic acids (self-replicating DNA and RNA). Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions of these classes of molecules.[15] Many approaches to abiogenesis investigate how self-replicating molecules, or their components, came into existence. It is generally thought that current life on Earth is descended from an RNA world,[16] although RNA-based life may not have been the first life to have existed.[17][18]

Anguspure · Jun 14, 2018

RealityCheck01 said:
15 June 2018 Anguspure: Nonsense question about a "metric" of abiogenesis.

Yes, nonsense because there is none.

There is no plausible method by which a natural law acting on it's own can ever produce anything new and useful like a living thing.

Consider This Article

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Well-Known Member

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency