What predictions does Intelligent Design make?

[yguy]

Was this your goal?

I don't have any goals. I just say what I know or what I think, and see what happens.

faith

You don't know what that is. Einstein did, though. That's why he said this:

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.

I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.​

However, I must contend that you don't know for certain that you exist.

Contend from here to Judgment Day if you want. You'll just burn yourself out.

If you do... please tell me how you know.

The same way you know you exist...and you do, your flailing protestations notwithstanding.

Ah, in come the adhoms.

No, I'm just aware that you may not yet have had a job of any consequence. If you do, you sure as heck didn't get it by announcing to your prospective employer that you don't know anything and don't need to know anything.

You've been gradually pushing this discussion in the direction of philosophy,

I didn't push it there, that's just where it went.

Oh, that's a different kind of nasty. While I'm perfectly capable of insulting you, I much prefer defeating you on the actual points in question. It makes it so you can't come back with that point without being dishonest, you know?

Umm, yeah, I know.

Your motives are pretty transparent; you can't beat me on the issues, so you hope to make me beat myself by making me angry.

No, I just understand that people who have emotional investments in silly ideas can hardly help but be angered by anyone who challenges those ideas with unswerving confidence.

Now if you're angry, that was probably true before I got here; and even if you beat me on the issues, you can't win...

...but if you're not, and you stay that way, you can't lose.

 

[gaara4158]

I don't have any goals. I just say what I know or what I think, and see what happens.

Well, friendly reminder: it's generally frowned upon to cause a topic to digress into a totally different subject, ie philosophy in an ID thread. Perhaps a quick view of the rules is in order?

You don't know what that is. Einstein did, though. That's why he said this:

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.

I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.​

Another gentle reminder: When quotes are presented, it helps to display the source, as well as to follow it with a short explanation as to why it is relevant to the discussion.

Contend from here to Judgment Day if you want. You'll just burn yourself out.

That's not an argument. That's a bet. Terrible form, sir.

The same way you know you exist...and you do, your flailing protestations notwithstanding.

So now, you not only have absolute knowledge, but you can also read minds. Tsk, tsk... I'd get that ego checked out, it can be very painful when it bursts.

No, I'm just aware that you may not yet have had a job of any consequence. If you do, you sure as heck didn't get it by announcing to your prospective employer that you don't know anything and don't need to know anything.

If only the English language were that simple. When I say I don't know anything, I'm not using the word in the way it's normally used. By "know," in this discussion, I mean "to be 100% certain of something." As I've said before, such certainty is unattainable, your "flailing protestations notwithstanding." In everyday conversation, the word "know" has many definitions:

1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully. 2. to have established or fixed in the mind or memory: to know a poem by heart; Do you know the way to the park from here? 3. to be cognizant or aware of: I know it. 4. be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report: to know the mayor. 5. to understand from experience or attainment (usually fol. by how before an infinitive): to know how to make gingerbread. 6. to be able to distinguish, as one from another: to know right from wrong. 7. Archaic. to have sexual intercourse with. –verb (used without object) 8. to have knowledge or clear and certain perception, as of fact or truth. 9. to be cognizant or aware, as of some fact, circumstance, or occurrence; have information, as about something.

I do have information, I am aware of certain facts, I have entire sales pitches committed to memory, and I have slept with many women. In these senses, I do know many things. However, I do not have absolute knowledge of everything. I'm fairly certain that I'll still be alive in five minutes, but I must account for the possibility that I could choke on a pretzel, or that a psycho could break in and kill me, or that some natural disaster will cause my house to crumble on top of me. Many people have the same security in their longevity as I do... three minutes before they die.
I see that creationists like to confuse one meaning of word A with another meaning; another popular tactic is to call evolution "just a theory" as though it's degrading, when actually scientific theories have the most scientific evidence supporting them. You're basically doing the same thing here with the word "know." Words have many different meanings. I don't mean to be rude, but you should get over it.

I didn't push it there, that's just where it went.

Well, be more careful next time. You selected the philosophical portions of my post to respond to, while ignoring the scientific parts. You may have done this subconsciously, but you did it nonetheless.

No, I just understand that people who have emotional investments in silly ideas can hardly help but be angered by anyone who challenges those ideas with unswerving confidence.

I find it astounding that you have such a firm grasp on this tendency, and yet you fail to spot it in yourself. Look over our exchange and see who's expressing more emotion...

Now if you're angry, that was probably true before I got here; and even if you beat me on the issues, you can't win...

Well, I'd lose the battle inside myself, but I'd still have beaten you.

...but if you're not, and you stay that way, you can't lose.

As long as you don't steal my girl, you're good. And since I don't have one, well... have fun trying to make me mad

 

[yguy]

That's not an argument.

I'm aware of that.

That's a bet.

No, it's a statement of fact.

Well, be more careful next time.

I see no reason to value admonitions regarding board conduct from anyone but CF staff. So next time you think I've not followed the rules, report me...because the next time you presume to correct me on such matters, the conversation is over.

Look over our exchange and see who's expressing more emotion...

I wouldn't say you're expressing a lot of emotion, but the fact that you are able to defend a premise which is so laughably absurd indicates that there is plenty of emotion that isn't manifesting itself for all of us to see.

Well, I'd lose the battle inside myself, but I'd still have beaten you.

If you're serious, you need to reconsider your priorities, lest your life become a living Hell...

...and if not, forget about beating me. Ain't happenin'.

 

[gaara4158]

I'm aware of that.

That's a bet.
​

No, it's a statement of fact.

You've committed yourself to one point of view, which you'll stick by until "judgment day" (which only one of us believes is actually coming), and yet you claim science does the same thing and laugh at it. Interesting.

I see no reason to value admonitions regarding board conduct from anyone but CF staff. So next time you think I've not followed the rules, report me...because the next time you presume to correct me on such matters, the conversation is over.

Ah, pride. Well, it's just general forum etiquette not to derail threads. I suppose you have an excuse because you've been spending time at some unmoderated boards, so you're used to anarchy, but I'm politely asking you to stay on topic. You can choose not to respond to me if this is too difficult for your swelled ego, but quitters never win.

I wouldn't say you're expressing a lot of emotion, but the fact that you are able to defend a premise which is so laughably absurd indicates that there is plenty of emotion that isn't manifesting itself for all of us to see.

You have yet to show me a single point of mine that is laughably absurd. I've given you facts, English definitions, philosophical explanations, and all I've gotten from you is "HAHA that's ridiculous, I'm obviously right but I can't tell you why!" Indeed, you've completely ignored large segments of my posts, even parts that pertain directly to a point you previously made about the OP.
I'm a nice guy, and you seem like one too. I don't enjoy making nice people uncomfortable, but when you insult my intelligence with antics like that, what choice do I have?

If you're serious, you need to reconsider your priorities, lest your life become a living Hell...

Oh, don't worry. The battle within oneself is much more important than any other battle; I'm no Sasuke. Just counting the ways in which you can lose...

...and if not, forget about beating me. Ain't happenin'.

You may never admit defeat, but you'll find it much harder to fight with broken limbs

 

[Tenka]

You do not know why you exist, so you have no basis for the certainty of your own existence. Right?

What a childish and pointless reply. If you think you deserve intelligent, civil discussion then wake up to your self and start acting like a grown up.

 

[Baggins]

Can I be the first to say that yguy has lost?

 

[Athrond]

There is no way for me to convey that information to anyone else. Either it's in you to see it or not.

Soo basically you have nothing to contribute? FAIL.

If you've ever rebuilt an engine, you probably came across some part and wondered what it was there for, because you knew it was there by design. Why, then, when you look at the structure of the atom, do you not know that the electrons occupy their various orbitals by design?

I don't see what's so designed about atoms. Might they not just be that way, because that is the way it happens to be?

Seems you have to be religious to accept your "argument" argument, but it should be easy to detect - if it was true.

You have certainly failed to convince anyone here

 

[ragarth]

There is no way for me to convey that information to anyone else. Either it's in you to see it or not.

Without the capacity to convey information, one must be aware of what pointless sounds they make. If you're unable to explain your reasoning behind why you think creationism rules and evolution drools, then might I propose that there is no reason behind your preference? If there were reasoning behind it, then that reasoning could be conveyed.

 

[gaara4158]

Can I be the first to say that yguy has lost?

For all that talk, he really didn't have much, did he?
And the funny thing is, he's probably going to continue debating elsewhere insisting that he's never lost.

 

[ragarth]

For all that talk, he really didn't have much, did he?
And the funny thing is, he's probably going to continue debating elsewhere insisting that he's never lost.

He ticked me off pretty bad by calling me dishonest and then refusing to back it up. That's a personal pet peeve of mine, and hence why I stepped back from the conversation.

 

[gaara4158]

He ticked me off pretty bad by calling me dishonest and then refusing to back it up. That's a personal pet peeve of mine, and hence why I stepped back from the conversation.

Yeah, sometimes people like that are more trouble than they're worth. dad, for example, is far too overwhelmingly ridiculous for me to even step into the same thread with him.

 

[yguy]

You've committed yourself to one point of view,

If you haven't read Orwell's 1984, you need to.

which you'll stick by until "judgment day" (which only one of us believes is actually coming), and yet you claim science does the same thing

I don't do any such thing.

Ah, pride.

Not at all. I just won't tolerate lectures on etiquette as a means of dodging the point.

You have yet to show me a single point of mine that is laughably absurd.

<staff edit>

 

[yguy]

I don't see what's so designed about atoms. Might they not just be that way, because that is the way it happens to be?

You realize that your question is vacuous, right?

Seems you have to be religious to accept your "argument" argument,

What are you talking about?

You have certainly failed to convince anyone here

It's pretty clear Einstein wouldn't have disagreed substantially; but I guess there's no sense he could hang with you guys intellectually, huh?

 

[Baggins]

I doubt Einstein would have wasted a moment on intelligent design as it is so obviously of zero scientific merit.

But you never know he wasn't a biologist so there is no certainty he would have grasped the argument.

Just because you are clever at one thing doesn't mean you are clever at everything, monomaths - if that is a word- far outnumber polymaths.

You wouldn't believe the numbers of lawyers and Engineers you see who are obviously intelligent people but obviously know next to nothing about science, and they get so offended when you tell them

 

[gaara4158]

If you haven't read Orwell's 1984, you need to.

Do you fancy yourself a Winston Smith?

I don't do any such thing.

So far, you've called evolution and global warming "sacred cows" of evolution. Thus you claim they're beliefs held for no good reason. I'd love to hear why.

Not at all. I just won't tolerate lectures on etiquette as a means of dodging the point.

Neither would I... good thing I haven't been doing that. If you'll recall, you actually didn't have a point. You threw and Einstein quote at me and refused to explain its significance. You also completely ignored, and continue to ignore, large, significant portions of my posts. I'm just telling you why that doesn't work.

I can hardly help the fact that you don't have (or won't use) eyes to see it.

Or perhaps my eyes just see right through everything you present, and underneath it all I see that you're frightened to death of the concept of there being no god.

 

[Baggins]

Do you fancy yourself a Winston Smith?


.

I hate purity I hate goodness I don't want virtue to exist anywhere I want everyone corrupt.

 

[Forum Cruiser]

Hummm...it seems I have triggered something here and I enjoy reading the responses. Unfortunately I am very busy this week but I will be back this weekend for a reply to everyone here. Thank you.

 

[yguy]

I doubt Einstein would have wasted a moment on intelligent design

If you by that you mean trying to prove it, I agree. However, it's clear from his own words that the idea undergirded his approach to every scientific inquiry.

 

[yguy]

Do you fancy yourself a Winston Smith?

Anyone worth his or her salt IS a pre-Room 101 Winston Smith, unless they're saints. And the end you have in mind for me is no different from that desired by O'brien: you want to blind me to the obvious. The only differences are that circumstances make your methodology quite a bit more limited than his was, and that you don't know you're doing it.

You threw and Einstein quote at me and refused to explain its significance.

All right, I'll condescend, possibly for the last time: you said my belief in my existence is faith-based, obviously believing faith to be irrational. Einstein said he couldn't imagine a scientist without faith. Therefore we have a conflict between his definition of faith and yours.

 

[Naraoia]

I never said anything different. What you're leaving out, just like the others, is knowledge, which in this case preempts the logical possibility of falsity, and the existence of which I suppose I can now reasonably expect you to deny.

Knowledge is irrelevant, just as actual truth is irrelevant. You could change my first statement to "I know the tree is there", and it wouldn't do anything whatsoever to the logical possibility of the other two.

The key point is: Logical possibility refers to the set of all possible logically consistent worlds, not just the one you're actually in.

Therefore the truth of a statement in any world does not impact the logical possibility of another statement (though it may impact its truth in the same world), with one exception I can think of:

Exception: if a statement was a tautology (e.g. "if there's a tree, there's a tree"), then it would be true in all possible worlds. This comes right from the fact that a contradiction (which is the negation of a tautology) is not logically possible.

But "I know there is a tree" is not a tautology. It's just a statement like "There is a tree" - it may or may not be true, depending on the state of the world. Its truth is not necessary for a world to be consistent.
(BTW, I've had maybe five or six lectures on logic in my life. So if I'm babbling nonsense, someone more logic-savvy do correct me.)

The end product of experiments that lasted hundreds of thousands of years, I trust?

Ugh.

If you paid any attention, it was whether the same kind of genetic differences underlie differences of colouration between and within species. If it's the same, that's a clue that nothing fundamentally different is going on with macroevolution. (In case you're wondering, I think this has been done with bigger differences than plumage colour)

Really, I don't understand this obsession with witnesses. Do you believe in paternity tests?

(Oh, yes, and

You do know the difference between evidence and extrapolation, right?

I do, thanks. Evidence is data points. If you have data points, you can draw inferences and build models. Extrapolation is inferring something that is outside the range of collected data. Weather forecasting (based on modelling the atmosphere) is extrapolation. Predicting Tiktaalik (based on "modelling" fish/tetrapod evolution) is not.

Now that we've clarified our concepts, can you please address the evidence used to infer common descent that is not just extrapolating microevolution? (here's a collection to help you remember some of it)

That's my term for the evolution of man from lower species.

It would be nice if you explained your terms. The first thing that jumped to mind about "anthropic evolution" was the anthropic principle, and that has relatively little to do with evolution.

Well I suppose it would be amusing to see a professor tearing his hair out...

Professor tearing hair out is not always a sign of your greatness

If you've ever rebuilt an engine, you probably came across some part and wondered what it was there for, because you knew it was there by design. Why, then, when you look at the structure of the atom, do you not know that the electrons occupy their various orbitals by design?

Have you ever noticed a subtle difference between engines and atoms?

Yeah, sometimes people like that are more trouble than they're worth. dad, for example, is far too overwhelmingly ridiculous for me to even step into the same thread with him.

It's reassuring to hear I'm not the only one who avoids every thread with dad like the plague