STILL no evidence FOR creation/ID

[DogmaHunter]

Regardless of the theories that exist about how this universe began. They all tell us that there was something that "developed" from something or something "banged". Which leads to the all importnt question as to what exactly "developed" or "banged"? Where did this first element or atom or particle or whatever COME FROM? This is the question that has nor can be answered apart from Almighty God.

When you don't know something, just say you don't know.
Making stuff up and / or making faith based assertions, is only pretending to know.

 

[DogmaHunter]

starting from where? Where did it BEGIN? apart from Almighty God, there is NO answer. Hawking was a rank FOOL!

A fool with an IQ that's likely double of yours...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Exactly how does anybody date billions of years ago?

With a bit of scientific help.

Only foolish people would accept such hogwash

Yes, it was already clear that you consider basic science to be "hogwash".

So, how's that PC working out for you?

 

[tas8831]

So you're going to argue that we cannot describe real aspects of the world through analogy?

No.
I am going to argue that analogies are not evidence.
Did you miss that part of what I wrote? Or just ignore it?

Of course calling something a "language" when it comes to DNA may not be a mere analogy.

It could be metaphorical.

Languages, like computer languages have certain objective characteristics that can be measured.

Who invented computer language again?

There's also forensic analysis that is a test for evidence of intent, insight, and/or premeditation. This sort of evidence is acceptable in courtrooms, would you consider that acceptable evidence of design?

No, since the analogies, upon which all of those other things are premised, are not evidence.

V

Or it could be a veiled blanket assertion that everything's "not evidence", and then making up ridiculous rationalizations why not as people actually present legitimate arguments... but you wouldn't do that now would you?

I never said "everything" is not evidence, only analogies and presuppositions.

Why the strawman characterization?

And still no evidence, I see.

 

[PhantomGaze]

I never said "everything" is not evidence, only analogies and presuppositions.

Why the strawman characterization?

Not at all a strawman, you've been a wonderful demonstration of exactly what I've been talking about.

I've given you a chance to let me know what sort of things you would be willing to take as evidence, and you haven't provided anything substantial, and of course rejected any suggested objective methods of analysis, because it would mean actually testing your ideas.

Who invented computer language again?

Designers of course.

No.
I am going to argue that analogies are not evidence.
Did you miss that part of what I wrote? Or just ignore it?

Not at all, you just haven't made any arguments. You've merely asserted that analogies are not evidence, but actual arguments require more than mere contradictory positions to be rational.

 

[PhantomGaze]

It is an excellent question and it is unfortunate that ID proponents have not done a better job of both defining what would constitute evidence and then providing it: irreducible complexity simply doesn't make the grade. Here is my list of evidence for design:
1. Things exist. We know some things have been designed, therefore the potential exists that all things might be designed, or at least that some things not currently thought to be designed might be so. (We should not forget Slartibartfast's work with fjords!) However, while this is evidence, it is not very good evidence.
2. Identifiable code within DNA equivalent to a PIN number, patent identifier, or similar. Alternatively a coded value of pi to, let's say, around 1000 places; or similar for any fundamental constant. Think Pioneer plaque writ in adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine.
3. Genotypes that stand outside a nested hierarchy.
4. A message from an extraterrestrial source explaining that their ancestors designed us.
5. This is highly speculative as I just don't know enough about this field, but I wonder if a Bayesian analysis might be able to demonstrate that known examples of poor design were more likely to be the result of convenient (lazy) adaptation of existing sub-routines (i.e. genes) rather than chance/natural selection.

If I come up with anymore I'll post them, but I really think it is up to those promoting, or leaning towards design to come up with categories of evidence, not those who doubt it. If there were some convincing identifiers we could look for then a search would become practical.

^^This is good.

Number 5 seems particularly interesting, although I wouldn't know where to begin on a project like that.

I've actually seen #2 suggested in before in a science magazine if I recall correctly.

What do you think of Dembski's specified complexity concept in The Design Inference? Perhaps dealing with the probability of getting correctly folded proteins for something like a Flagellum?
William Albert Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities - PhilPapers

Shoot an arrow at a wall, and then paint a target around it so that the arrow sticks squarely in the bull's eye. Alternatively, paint a fixed target on a wall, and then shoot an arrow so that it sticks squarely in the bull's eye. How do these situations differ? In both instances the precise place where the arrow lands is highly improbable. Yet in the one, one can do no better than attribute the arrow's landing to chance, whereas in the other one rightly attributes the arrow's landing to the archer's skill. ;Highly improbable events occur all the time, and by themselves may legitimately be attributed to chance. Yet when an event also conforms to a pattern given independently of that event , one rightly refuses to attribute the event to chance. Patterns given independently of events are called specifications...

The dual notions of specification and small probability together help justify a regulative principle of probability called the Law of Small Probability, which asserts that specified events of small probability do not occur by chance. This principle engenders a form of inference called the design inference, and a mode of explanation called design.

Or for a curveball, something like Nick Bostrom's Simulation Agument?

Simulation Argument - Bibliography - PhilPapers

The simulation argument refers to an argument of Nick Bostrom's. The conclusion of the argument is that one of the following three theses is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation.

 

[tas8831]

I never said "everything" is not evidence, only analogies and presuppositions.

Why the strawman characterization?

Not at all a strawman, you've been a wonderful demonstration of exactly what I've been talking about.

In the OP, I wrote:

"Analogies to human activity, bible verses, 'problems' with evolution - none of these, not one of them, is evidence FOR creation or ID."

After several pages of ONLY those things being presented (along with numerous fallacious burden shifting attempts), in response to yet another analogy, I replied:

"Because Ralph and Stan could, perhaps, point to newspaper clippings documenting that time John saved a bus full of kids. Or show that he had earned 'Citizen of the Year.' Or that John donates every Saturday feeding the homeless.

They could, in other words, provide tangible evidence for their claim."​

Later, one brave, overconfident fellow links to a creationist essay titled "The Scientific Evidence for Creation". Which, predictably, did not actually contain anything like the title suggests, and consisted almost entirely of 'evolution cannot explain THIS!' sorts of gibberish, along with the requisite attacks on evolutionists, out of context quotes, etc.

Then you came along, implying that the thread was trolling, and offered up no actual evidence, but asked what I would accept (even though this was outlined in the OP), and I replied:

"Something tangible and verifiable and not reliant upon 'already believing'."

Which sort of leaves things wide open, with the exception of what I had already proscribed (e.g., analogies).

I've given you a chance to let me know what sort of things you would be willing to take as evidence, and you haven't provided anything substantial,

Oh, my goodness thank you for condescending from On High to give me this chance to let you know what to present to support your beliefs!

It is funny - when asked to present evidence for evolution, in this very thread, I did so immediately. Yet creationists play these games, I suspect because they know they have only word games, idiosyncratic definitions and analogies, etc., and they know deep down that these games do not sway the opinions of those that can actually present objective evidence in support of a different 'belief.'

and of course rejected any suggested objective methods of analysis,

There is nothing objective in re-defining metaphorical terms to make a story that is only compelling to those who want to accept it in the first place. About 18 years ago, on the old ARN (Discovery Institute) forums, someone posting as "MikeGene" or "MikeBGene" wrote, after presenting what he believed was 'evidence' for ID (which was, as I recall, the result of his hypothesis about he would do as a Designer, setting out to make the DNA-RNA-protein system followed by a Medlne search that produced a paper that he claimed supported his thought experiment, thus a Creator Designed it!) and getting no positive responses from any of the people with science backgrounds, that it really was evidence provided you accepted ID in the first place.

It seems that you are doing something very similar.

because it would mean actually testing your ideas.

It is not my idea that needs testing. My ideas on the origins of species has lots and lots of evidence in its support - even the more educated and honest creationists acknowledge this:

The truth about evolution

I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.​

If you have objective evidence, it should not rely on my approval as acceptable, it should simply BE evidence. Not analogies, not metaphors, not arguments-via-definition-and-question-begging.

Designers of course.

Human designers. Whose 'histories' are known, and whose designs were/are premised on lengthy periods of the accumulation and application of relevant knowledge (as well as trial and error) and a reliance upon numerous other fields of inquiry and engineering - documented, tangible research and a trail of previous effort. So, let's see the evidence.

Not at all, you just haven't made any arguments.

And you've not presented evidence, and are content to simply play games. It is a standard course of events.

You've merely asserted that analogies are not evidence,

ANALOGY:

At its most basic, an analogy is a comparison of two things to show their similarities. Sometimes the things being compared are quite similar, but other times they could be very different. Nevertheless, an analogy explains one thing in terms of another to highlight the ways in which they are alike.​

An example given:

"Withdrawal of U.S. troops will become like salted peanuts to the American public; the more U.S. troops come home, the more will be demanded." - Henry Kissinger in a Memo to President Richard Nixon.​

ANALOGY:

1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2. similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
3. Biology. an analogous relationship.
   
   

And perhaps most relevant and to the point -

ANALOGY:

Analogy definition: An analogy is a comparison between two things that are quite different in nature. An analogy often explains a complex subject with one that is simpler or more familiar...

An analogy is a comparison between two things. By nature, those two things are quite different from each other.

An analogy looks at complex subjects and simplifies them through comparison. The simplified or more familiar aspect of an analogy helps a reader understand the more complex concept.​

Notably, after looking through about 8 definitions of "analogy", none indicated or implied that analogies are evidence FOR one thing or another, only that analogies point of similarities between two things, like eating peanuts and U.S. foreign policy.

If that is the best you think you can offer, then you truly have nothing.

but actual arguments require more than mere contradictory positions to be rational.

I didn't really think that I would have to actually define 'analogy' in order for a creationist to understand that they are not evidence. I know that they like to use them since analogies are essentially all they have (especially the ID types), and upon pointing out that analogies are not evidence, most rational creationist/IDists shy away from them, at least temporarily. But I have never encountered someone actually requiring a presentation of a definition to show that they are not only not evidence, but in fact are comparing 2 very DIFFERENT things.

In the end, I accept your drawn out concession that you cannot present objective, verifiable evidence for Design or creation.

 

[Ophiolite]

Number 5 seems particularly interesting, although I wouldn't know where to begin on a project like that.

I proposed this because I have read a one or two papers that used Bayesian analysis to interesting effect. One, published in PNAS in the last five years, I think, concluded that life likely originated on Earth on several independent occassions, but only one of these lines survived. In the other the authors believed they had detected a periodicity in the magnetic pole reversals that had previously been thought to be random. However, I'm not 100% sure that was the same kind of analysis.

If it were to produce a result it would create a definite conflict for those creationists who resolutely declare that you can't tell what happened in the past because no one was there to see it. (A viewpoint that I personally consider solid grounds for exclusion from the human race.)

I've actually seen #2 suggested in before in a science magazine if I recall correctly.

I think I adapted the notion from the SF novel Contact by Carl Sagan, in which IIRC a message is found embedded deep in the value of pi. Hence my recursive suggestion of making pi part of the DNA message.

What do you think of Dembski's specified complexity concept in The Design Inference? Perhaps dealing with the probability of getting correctly folded proteins for something like a Flagellum?

I am not sure if I read that, but I have read and have a copy of his 2004 book The Design Revolution. Ultimately I find his argument falls into the logical fallacy category of Argument from Incredulity. He provides no menaingful way of quantifying specified complexity and his examples have been refuted by smarter minds than mine.

I cheerfully concede that specified complexity might exist and that if it did it would be evidence in support of ID, however it has yet to be demonstrated.

 

[PhantomGaze]

Elucidation of objective characteristics of language, and forensic analysis are not arguments from analogy.

If you have objective evidence, it should not rely on my approval as acceptable, it should simply BE evidence. Not analogies, not metaphors, not arguments-via-definition-and-question-begging.

Well, if I were going to try and convince YOU that there is evidence of design, I would have to use arguments that you feel are persuasive. You seem to think everything's an analogy when it's not.

 

[Ophiolite]

@tas8831 I'm curious as to what your view would be as to the potential evidence I proposed in an earlier post. Only the first currently exists. Here they are again for your convenience.
1. Things exist. We know some things have been designed, therefore the potential exists that all things might be designed, or at least that some things not currently thought to be designed might be so. (We should not forget Slartibartfast's work with fjords!) However, while this is evidence, it is not very good evidence.
2. Identifiable code within DNA equivalent to a PIN number, patent identifier, or similar. Alternatively a coded value of pi to, let's say, around 1000 places; or similar for any fundamental constant. Think Pioneer plaque writ in adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine.
3. Genotypes that stand outside a nested hierarchy.
4. A message from an extraterrestrial source explaining that their ancestors designed us.
5. This is highly speculative as I just don't know enough about this field, but I wonder if a Bayesian analysis might be able to demonstrate that known examples of poor design were more likely to be the result of convenient (lazy) adaptation of existing sub-routines (i.e. genes) rather than chance/natural selection.

 

[tas8831]

What do you think of Dembski's specified complexity concept in The Design Inference?

Not much. In effect, it is another post-hoc probability game. There are more in-depth debunkings - pick one:

Dissecting Dembski's "Complex Specified Information"

Information theory, evolutionary computation, and Dembski's "complex specified information" on JSTOR

Lots more.

Perhaps dealing with the probability of getting correctly folded proteins for something like a Flagellum?

Post-hoc probability calculations are so impressive. How about we deal a deck of cards, then look at the probability that those 52 cards would have been dealt in that particular order (apparently, it is something like 8x10^67).

 

[Ophiolite]

Would you consider Evolution based upon pre-determined functional information (akin to the unfolding of a computer program) evidence of design?

I'm not clear what you are asking here. "functional information" appears to be equivalent to "genes". Do I have that right? If not what do you mean by it?

All genes contain pre-determined functional information, otherwise they wouldn't be genes, so I am missing the point you are seeking to make/question you are trying to ask.

 

[tas8831]

@tas8831 I'm curious as to what your view would be as to the potential evidence I proposed in an earlier post. Only the first currently exists. Here they are again for your convenience.
1. Things exist. We know some things have been designed, therefore the potential exists that all things might be designed, or at least that some things not currently thought to be designed might be so. (We should not forget Slartibartfast's work with fjords!) However, while this is evidence, it is not very good evidence.

This falls into the 'analogy' realm - not evidence.

2. Identifiable code within DNA equivalent to a PIN number, patent identifier, or similar. Alternatively a coded value of pi to, let's say, around 1000 places; or similar for any fundamental constant. Think Pioneer plaque writ in adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine.

Something actually tangible like this might be intriguing, but one has to be careful. Remember the 'bible code' craze from several years ago? Depending on the 'decoding' scheme one applies, one can find just about anything one wants. I recall that one counter to a claim that 'evidence' that creation was real was revealed by a particular, arbitrary bible decoding algorithm found the phrase "Darwin was right" by using another!

3. Genotypes that stand outside a nested hierarchy.

Not so sure - the analysis would have to be very rigorous, as there are many known genetic mechanisms that could substantially alter a genotype such that it may not 'fit' in a typical analytically derived cladogram. HGT, indels, paralogous gene duplications, etc. can mess with such analyses. In addition, I think that there would have to be a substantial departure from the 'accepted' hierarchies, and that this should comprise a pattern, as opposed to a single anomaly.

4. A message from an extraterrestrial source explaining that their ancestors designed us.

Clearly, but in the context of this discussion, that would be more of a problem for those of a creationist bent, it seems to me.

5. This is highly speculative as I just don't know enough about this field, but I wonder if a Bayesian analysis might be able to demonstrate that known examples of poor design were more likely to be the result of convenient (lazy) adaptation of existing sub-routines (i.e. genes) rather than chance/natural selection.

I think this is, more or less, already the accepted 'norm', if I am interpreting this correctly. For example, back problems/pain are largely a side effect of bipedality.

But interesting to note that you've put more effort into this than actual IDCs...

 

[tas8831]

Elucidation of objective characteristics of language,

"Objective" characteristics of language? Did you really just write that?

and forensic analysis are not arguments from analogy.

Well, if I were going to try and convince YOU that there is evidence of design, I would have to use arguments that you feel are persuasive. You seem to think everything's an analogy when it's not.

No, I just think analogies are analogies.

It looks like you have moved on to question begging, and are looking at the prospects of 'describing' (but not using an analogy!) genes as this "pre-determined functional information (akin to the unfolding of a computer program)".

But no analogies or metaphorical language used as evidence, no sirree!

 

[juvenissun]

The last thread I started commenting on this phenomenon got bogged down by trolls and eventually closed.

Most interestingly, no creationists presented anything even close to evidence. It was all the usual antics...



And it is always... ALWAYS... 'arguments' against evolution.

NEVER arguments FOR creation/ID.

Analogies to human activity, bible verses, 'problems' with evolution - none of these, not one of them, is evidence FOR creation or ID.


It is almost as if creationists have admitted to themselves, subconsciously, that they cannot actually offer any positive supporting evidence FOR their mere beliefs, and are content to simply attack 'the other.' This is true, whether the creationist is a one-line snark master, or a verbose citation and quote bombing autodidact.

There are plenty of evidences for creation. You are probably not able to apprehend any of them. Do you understand that it would take a college education to see an evidence with uses calculus? If you are only a middle-school student, you won't be able to see the evidence even it is laid right before your eyes.

 

[pitabread]

There are plenty of evidences for creation. You are probably not able to apprehend any of them.

I tried apprehending some evidence once, but it ducked through an alley, hopped a fence and then I lost it in a crowd.

Oh well.

 

[juvenissun]

I tried apprehending some evidence once, but it ducked through an alley, hopped a fence and then I lost it in a crowd.

Oh well.

Care to examine one of such example? (I don't think so)

 

[PsychoSarah]

There are plenty of evidences for creation.

-_- pretty sure "evidence" is both the singular and the plural.

You are probably not able to apprehend any of them.

Not without a warrant ;P

Assuming that we won't be able to comprehend evidence and thus not presenting it is pointless. Why even bring up the evidence at all if you aren't going to share it?

Do you understand that it would take a college education to see an evidence with uses calculus?

-_- do you understand that calculus is often taught in high school?

If you are only a middle-school student, you won't be able to see the evidence even it is laid right before your eyes.

I am 100% certain no one you have debated with in the past year is that young, and I would be outright shocked if pitabread wasn't at least around my age (23).

 

[juvenissun]

I am 100% certain no one you have debated with in the past year is that young, and I would be outright shocked if pitabread wasn't at least around my age (23).

When you were 32, you probably would see my point better.

Evidences are EVERYWHERE for Pitabread and you, only if you care to see it.

 

[pitabread]

Evidences are EVERYWHERE for Pitabread and you, only if you care to see it.

I find that when people start down this line of argument the end result is usually just a tautology.

Unless you have something completely novel to present, I suspect it's going to be nothing I haven't heard before.