A simple case for intelligent design

[Subduction Zone]

You have to deal with Debkies argument, he did claims to have a method that would allow is to detect design, so why is he wrong? What is wrong with his method?

You have to deal with Debkies argument, he did claims to have a method that would allow is to detect design, so why is he wrong? What is wrong with his method?

What is Demski's claim? Provide a quote and a link and explain how he has evidence for his claims

And this question is very important, if Demski cannot answer it that means he has no evidence:And

What reasonable test could possibly refute Demski's claims? The test has to be based on the merits of Demski's idea.

 

[leroy]

So?

Two hundred years ago we didn't know the atom was made up of smaller things. One hundred years ago we didn't know those smaller things were made up of even smaller things. One hundred years ago we didn't know continents moved. Today, we don't know the origin of life. What makes you think fifty years from now we still won't know.

One thing I do know, if you were alive three hundred years ago you would have been arguing that there is no way that the earth can be going around the sun.

Ignoring science leads to ignorance.



ETA:


"to date" Please re-read and understand what I wrote about scientific knowledge advancing.

It is very easy to be a naturalist, all you have to do is assert someone somehow will solve the problem in the future.

I can ask you the same thing, what makes you think that in 50 years the “origin of life problem” would be even harder to solve than today due to new scientific discoveries?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is very easy to be a naturalist, all you have to do is assert someone somehow will solve the problem in the future.

I can ask you the same thing, what makes you think that in 50 years the “origin of life problem” would be even harder to solve than today due to new scientific discoveries?

Incorrect. One's ideas must be testable. I see that you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. Would you care to learn?

 

[leroy]

Of course I can dismiss Demski. Hitchens ' Razor.

And I can refute naturalism too-----Hitchens razor

 

[leroy]

Incorrect. One's ideas must be testable. I see that you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. Would you care to learn?

Why do you have this annoying tendency of answering something that has nothing to do with the comment that you are quoting.

The point that I made is that it is fallacious to proclaim that “naturalism wins” because “maybe” in 50 years someone will solve the origin of life problem

So you ether agree with my point, or provide reasons for why you think that this point in particular is wrong

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I can refute naturalism too-----Hitchens razor

No, you can't. And you do not understand Hitchens' Razor. Do you even know what it is? Clearly you don't. Look it up and then you should realize your error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you have this annoying tendency of answering something that has nothing to do with the comment that you are quoting.

The point that I made is that it is fallacious to proclaim that “naturalism wins” because “maybe” in 50 years someone will solve the origin of life problem

So you ether agree with my point, or provide reasons for why you think that this point in particular is wrong

Because your posts have an annoying tendency to prove that you do not understand the basics of science, evidence, or who has the burden of proof.

And you misstated why naturalism wins. It wins because its ideas are supported by evidence and yours are not.

 

[leroy]

What is Demski's claim? Provide a quote and a link and explain how he has evidence for his claims

And this question is very important, if Demski cannot answer it that means he has no evidence:And

What reasonable test could possibly refute Demski's claims? The test has to be based on the merits of Demski's idea.

I think this paragraph is a good summery and representastion of what Demmski claims, feel free to read the whole article, or the references for a deeper understanding of the concept. I´ll tell you what, understand the concept of specified complexity, by reading any source that you might find realiable, and then come back and present clearly and unambiguously your specific points of disagreement, and we can have a conversation on those specific points.

According to mathematician and philosopher William A. Dembski, "given an event, object, or structure, to convince ourselves that it is designed we need to show that it is improbably (i.e. complex) and suitably patterned (i.e. specified)."[1] Dembski has defended "specified complexity"-or "complex specified information" (CSI)-as a reliable design detection criterion in numerous writings,[2] including his peer-reviewed monograph The Design Inference.[3] In simplified sum, a long string of random letters is complex without being specified (that is, without conforming to an independently given pattern that we have not simply read off the object or event in question). A short sequence of letters like "this" or "that" is specified without being sufficiently complex to outstrip the capacity of chance to explain this conformity (for example, letters drawn at random from a Scrabble bag will occasionally form a short word). Neither complexity without specificity nor specificity without complexity compels us to infer design. However, this paper is both specified (conforming to the functional requirements of grammatical English) and sufficiently complex (doing so at a level of complexity that makes it unreasonable to attribute this match to luck) to trigger a design inference on the grounds that "in all cases where we know the causal origin of . . . specified complexity, experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role."[4]
The Design Inference from Specified Complexity Defended by Scholars Outside the Intelligent Design Movement

,,,

And

What reasonable test could possibly refute Demski's claims? The test has to be based on the merits of Demski's idea

What reasonable test woudl falsify natrualism?
Prediction: you will not answer to this question...


In order to falsify Demski you can ether

1 provide an example of a false positive, (ie: something that passes the test and that we know wasent design)

2 show that it is possible to have living things (organic things capable of reproducing) that lacks the attribute of specified complexity.

 

[leroy]

No, you can't. And you do not understand Hitchens' Razor. Do you even know what it is? Clearly you don't. Look it up and then you should realize your error.

Since you are asserting that naturalism is true, (in the context of the origin of life) then the burden proof is not you, and I don’t have to do anything …. This is hitchens razor, isn’t it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think this paragraph is a good summery and representastion of what Demmski claims, feel free to read the whole article, or the references for a deeper understanding of the concept. I´ll tell you what, understand the concept of specified complexity, by reading any source that you might find realiable, and then come back and present clearly and unambiguously your specific points of disagreement, and we can have a conversation on those specific points.


,,,

What reasonable test woudl falsify natrualism?
Prediction: you will not answer to this question...


In order to falsify Demski you can ether

1 provide an example of a false positive, (ie: something that passes the test and that we know wasent design)

2 show that it is possible to have living things (organic things capable of reproducing) that lacks the attribute of specified complexity.

All that I can see is vague handwaving. That is subject to Hitchens'Razor.

And by attempting to shift the burden of proof you effectively refuted yourself.

So, once again, what reasonable test could possibly refute his claims? If you can't think of any then by definition and he has no evidence for his beliefs. Hitchens 'Razor applies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since you are asserting that naturalism is true, (in the context of the origin of life) then the burden proof is not you, and I don’t have to do anything …. This is hitchens razor, isn’t it?

Where did I say that it is true?

Try again.

 

[leroy]

Because your posts have an annoying tendency to prove that you do not understand the basics of science, evidence, or who has the burden of proof.

And you misstated why naturalism wins. It wins because its ideas are supported by evidence and yours are not.

Well so far I have provided evidence (Dembkies test) and you haven’t provided any.

What you have to do is explain why is Demskies test worng and then provide a positive case of your own showing that life had a naturalistic origin.

Prediction:, you will make a stupid semantic game, but you will not explain why is the test wrong, and you won’t provide a positive case for naturalism

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well so far I have provided evidence (Dembkies test) and you haven’t provided any.

What you have to do is explain why is Demskies test worng and then provide a positive case of your own showing that life had a naturalistic origin.

Prediction:, you will make a stupid semantic game, but you will not explain why is the test wrong, and you won’t provide a positive case for naturalism

No, you didn't. Dembski only handwaved in an argument using undefined terms. You could not even state his argument. Since he has no argument how you would one test it?

By the way, pointing out the idiocy of Dembski's undefined claims is not a semantic game. You are projecting again.

 

[leroy]

Where did I say that it is true?

Try again.

Ok so do you claim that life had a naturalistic origin? Based on the evidence that we have to date would you say that naturalism is a better explanation than design? Yes or no?............o yes you don’t like to answer questions

Prediction, you will not answer with a simple yes or no

 

[leroy]

No, you didn't. Dembski only handwaved in an argument using undefined terms. You could not even state his argument. Since he has no argument how you would one test it?

You sound like a flat earther,

 

[leroy]

So, once again, what reasonable test could possibly refute his claims? If you can't think of any then by definition and he has no evidence for his beliefs. Hitchens 'Razor applies.

Well you have to justify your assertions, why aren’t the potential falsifications that I presented “reasonable”

 

[Subduction Zone]

You sound like a flat earther,

LOL!! Oh my! Coming from a person that does not understand evidence or the burden of proof. That is hilarious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well you have to justify your assertions, why aren’t the potential falsifications that I presented “reasonable”

Because you could not even clearly state Dembski's position. Don't worry, he can't either.

as stated his concept is not testable.

 

[leroy]

LOL!! Oh my! Coming from a person that does not understand evidence or the burden of proof. That is hilarious.

Well then

1 find an argument, assertion etc. that I have made that you would reject (something that you would affirm is wrong)

2 Prove that I wrong with evidence (that way I would understand how burden proofs and evidence works)

 

[leroy]

Because you could not even clearly state Dembski's position. Don't worry, he can't either.

as stated his concept is not testable.

well what part of his position is not clear for you?