Evolution And I.d. Evidence Arguments

[Vash]

My fault. I should have realized that without specifically addressing my prior post to you, you would be unable to read and digest it. Try reading it again - and this time, go very slowly over the part about an argument from ignorance. Your statement demonstrates an uncanny ability to not digest what you have just read (if you bothered to read it at all).
Truthseekingsoul has pointed out the irony in your last post, so I will bow to his response.


And yet, Intelligent Design is just that - an imaginitive possibility. If, and when, someone can produce evidence that supports it, we will be able to move it into the debate of possibilities that are testable and falsifiable.


ID is only currently accepted as a model by people of FAITH (and now, those that can twist logic and rational thought).


No - it doesn't. It deserves the same consideration that any model that is based on a revealed faith, but it is not on the same playing field with Evolution - a scientific theory that is testable and falsifiable. Your claims to the contrary nothwithstanding, ID is a belief based on faith - in the case of some, it would appear to be a shaky faith that needs to be bolstered by unrealistic claims of scientific approval (which is not forthcoming).


Excellent. I hope you find the answers you search for.


Great - then you'll be rejecting ID, unless you are telling me that you accept it on FAITH. Is that what I'm hearing?


You are correct again. Until I have a second hypothesis (that is testable and falsifiable) to compare with Evolution, I will admit to having made up my mind. While I'm on this point, where is that evidence that you all keep promising for ID? I must be missing those posts - all I seem to find are the ones where you try to falsify evolution.


I'm guessing the answer will not be a mathematical basis FOR ID, rather, it will be a jewel of conjecture that will try to prove that Evolution is mathematically impossible. Once again, you will resort to an argument from ignorance, and will do so with the firm conviction that you are arguing FOR ID. Of course, you won't be, but you won't see it that way - until you master the concepts of logic.

Thanks,
TVOR

according to wikipedia, it is technically a scientific model. its based in mathematics, philosophy, and the science of design detection. sorry but it sounds to me like its a little more than an imaginitive possibility.

man, i sence so much anger and frustration here on both sides.

i mean, TVOR i see you say that there is 'no reason to limit the choice to abiogenisis or creationism'. so i said in responce yes, there is a reason. they are both models i.e. working theories, and we should limit our choices to models and thoeries...and not include unknown, unspecified, hypothetical 'possibilities' that anyone can pull out of a hat or a sci-fi show.. makes sence, right? then you get positively snippy...whats up with that?!

i have seen a few links to info about ID, have you bothered to look at them? remember when i said, "The writings of William A. Dembski is a good place to start." did you bother to look? you know its a hyperlink, right?

and then you say a prejudiced, stereotypical thing like, "I'm guessing the answer will not be a mathematical basis FOR ID, rather, it will be a jewel of conjecture that will try to prove that Evolution is mathematically impossible."

man, if that isn't closed-minded i dont know what is. you dismiss things out out of hand and have the audacity to claim to be fair? you have lost all credibility in my eyes, TVOR, and all respect.

im having a hard time understanding what you are doing here in this thread, TVOR. if you really wanted the inside scoop on ID, you wouldnt be here correcting the illogical, uneducated statements from laymen like me. you would be looking at the material i, or others have provided. or out searching for your own material...its out there. im no scientist, and if you base your appraisal of ID on what people like me say or dont say then you are unwise to say the least.

no, i think you are here because you are trained in logic, and you like arguing against people who aren't.

 

[Yerda]

Vash, you appear very open-minded. I consider that a virtue. Being just a tad judgemental though.

TVOR (and a few others) often show people the logical errors in their arguments, which is a good thing. If you inderstand the glaring mistakes you can correct them. The point is that after christ knows how many threads and thousands of posts the evidence for ID has still only been 'evolution is wrong because...'

Now, I have not read your sources...yet, but I intend to. Is there any evidence for an intelligent designer, and for intelligent design that is not the desperate attempt of a theist to discredit evolution?

 

[Yerda]

other possibilites, yes. but we aren't talking about other possibilites. we are talking about currently accepted models for the origin of life, and which model is more likely.

No we are not.

What we are discussing here is the evidence for two theories that do not in certain respects contradict each other. Evolution is not a model for the origin of life, intelligent design generally is.

But (here comes an 'IF'), if life were to be intelligently designed (by a human) it would not preclude the said life from the biological fact that is evolution. It would bring us no closer to finding the origins of life, here or otherwise.

The debate is more centered around; did life evolve to what it currently is? Or, was it created as such?

 

[Vash]

Vash, you appear very open-minded. I consider that a virtue. Being just a tad judgemental though.

TVOR (and a few others) often show people the logical errors in their arguments, which is a good thing. If you inderstand the glaring mistakes you can correct them. The point is that after christ knows how many threads and thousands of posts the evidence for ID has still only been 'evolution is wrong because...'

Now, I have not read your sources...yet, but I intend to. Is there any evidence for an intelligent designer, and for intelligent design that is not the desperate attempt of a theist to discredit evolution?

"Intelligent design (ID) describes a controversial set of arguments which assert that empirical evidence supports the conclusion that life on Earth was deliberately designed by one or more intelligent agents."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design


the key seems to be how ID interpretes the evidence. evolution wants to interprete it one way, ID wants to interprete it another. niether can prove openly beyond a shadow of a doubt who is right...that i have seen. but i want each to get thier fair day in court.

But (here comes an 'IF'), if life were to be intelligently designed (by a human) it would not preclude the said life from the biological fact that is evolution. It would bring us no closer to finding the origins of life, here or otherwise.

The debate is more centered around; did life evolve to what it currently is? Or, was it created as such?

yes, i think you are talking about abiogenesis (aka evolution) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

vs. biogenesis (aka ID) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis

at least, thats my meager understanding of it so far. seems to me so far that no matter how you slice it, its one or the other...

 

[Pah]

"Intelligent design (ID) describes a controversial set of arguments which assert that empirical evidence supports the conclusion that life on Earth was deliberately designed by one or more intelligent agents."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design


the key seems to be how ID interpretes the evidence. evolution wants to interprete it one way, ID wants to interprete it another. niether can prove openly beyond a shadow of a doubt who is right...that i have seen. but i want each to get thier fair day in court.

yes, i think you are talking about abiogenesis (aka evolution) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

vs. biogenesis (aka ID) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis

at least, thats my meager understanding of it so far. seems to me so far that no matter how you slice it, its one or the other...

I think that's a great start, Now you should throw in the politics of the religious right, understanding that the Supreme Court decision to ban creationism from the classroom did not sit well with that group. That ID is merely a "science" (as creationism was desired to be a science) that passes Constitutional muster (in theory). ID fails the definition of science but continues to cloak creationism with a patina of scientific criticism. What you have is a relgious movement weilding political power with a pseudo-science to instill a form of creationism in the classroom. That succently defines Intelligent Design but this thread plays thier scientific game

 

[The Voice of Reason]

AAARRGGGHHH - an entire post, lost to the ether that is the internet!! I will rewrite it now.

To begin -
Vash, if I respond with a "snippy" answer, I apologize. The frustration level is sometimes more than I can take, because there appears to be an endless string of people that wander into this site, that want to espouse ID, as if they were the first to bring it up here. Nothing could be further from the truth. For any (and all) of my responses that are ill-tempered, I apologize. I do not wish to attack individuals, but I am human, with all of the limitations that implies.

On to your post -
Your claim that Wikipedia technically views ID as a scientific model is not correct. Let's consider the following, taken from Wikipedia's entry on ID (which you provided the link for):
The Intelligent Design movement is an organized campaign to promote ID arguments in the public sphere, primarily in the United States. The hub of the movement is the Center for Science and Culture, a subsidiary of the Discovery Institute, a politically conservativethink tank funded at US$1.5 per year by Howard Ahmanson Jr., amongst others. Mr. Ahmanson funds many causes important the religious right, including Christian Reconstructionism, whose goal is to place the U.S. "under the control of biblical law".

This clearly shows who is behind the ID movement, and what the true agenda of ID proponents is. It is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to place Creationism in science classes in American high schools. Nothing more, nothing less.

Let's read a little more from that passage:
Though many within the ID movement are unashamedly motivated by religious commitment, ID proponents generally rely on secular sources for building arguments. Nevertheless, ID also engages the current materialistic understanding of the universe:
"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
There is no mistaking what is happening here - a small group of Theists see ID as an opportunity to force a religious point of view into the classroom, for the express purpose of fostering their personal views of God and religion. If accomplished, this would be a very significant step toward establishing a theocracy in America - capture the minds of the youth, with the backing of science - then, as they grow older, the ability to discern between legitimate scientific work and the rhetoric that politically motivated people (willing to use religion) can bring to the table is lost. Not unlike the effect that Fox News Network has had on many young people in America today - they do not have the maturity to discern politically motivated rhetoric and a truly unbiased view of world events. To watch Sean Hannity shout down anyone on his show that he disagrees with, and then call it "Fair and Balanced" is the ultimate in hypocrisy. Sadly, many young people today see it as if it were a real newscast.

As to your assertion that I do not do you the justice of following your links or even reading the articles for ID, I have to admit that I do not follow all links to their complete end. You do me an injustice by insinuating that I do not follow them at all. I have read enough of the writings of William Dembski to know that his version of ID is underpinned by a variation of Paley's Watchmaker Argument (Dembski's version is based on what is known as the "Lute" - the variation is that a Lute needs someone to play it, unlike the watch that Paley espouses. It is a minor twist, with no appreciable merit. Just as a side note - you do realize that Dembski has a Master's Degree - in Divinity.
Also from the Wikipedia article:
Therefore, ID may be described as a more robust revision of the argument from design made famous by William Paley in the early 19th century.

As a last reference to the Wikipedia article:
The most common response of ID's opponents in the scientific community is to simply reject the ID claims as being scientifically illegitimate. For example, the National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education have described ID as pseudoscience.

Now, I don't know where you come from, but in my neighborhood, the National Academy of Science, and the National Center for Science Education carry more than a little weight in matters of science. A quick side note here - both the NA of Science and the NC for Science Education are comprised (mostly) of Theists. They reject ID as a pseudoscience for one reason - lacking evidence for it's claims, it is not testable, nor is it falsifiable. Until, and unless the proponents of ID can provide some evidence for it's consideration, it will remain a pseudoscience. The moment that testable and falsifiable evidence is provided FOR SUPPORT OF ID, it will then be moved into the realm of science - and at that point in time, I (along with everyone else that needs empirical evidence) will consider the evidence presented. If I find that said evidence has merit, I will move form my position as an Agnostic into one of a Theist. Until that time, I'm not moving.

As for your loss of respect for me, I will live with it. I do not know what it takes to win your respect, but if I fail in that arena, I will continue to work to inspire others to learn to properly use logic and reason when they make claims about science.

You state that you do not know what I am doing in this thread. I am here (in this thread) to rebuke the introduction of religious dogma into science classes in this country. The fact that ID has no supporting evidence invalidates its claims to scientific standing. If someone wants to teach ID in American schools, that is fine with me - but teach it in a class called "Comparative Religion", and teach all versions of Creationism - not just the Christian version. And have the integrity to tell the children that there is no EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT - rather, that it is based on revealed faith. Do NOT teach it in a science class - for it has no right to be there.

Your last statement "i think you are here because you are trained in logic, and you like arguing against people who aren't" reveals a keen insight on your part. I am fairly well trained in logic, and its application to sift through the rhetoric that permeates both politics and advertising. Call it a hobby, call it a gift, call it a curse - but it is part of who I am. As for arguing against people that aren't (trained in logic), you are partially correct. I would use the term "debate" as opposed to "argue with" - as "debate" has the connotation (at least, it does to me) that I am trying to help others learn the basics of logic, and the nuances for those that care to bother. When I point out a logical fallacy in someone's position, it is not to humiliate them, but to show them that there stance on that particular issue needs to be rethought. When I (and Pah, Deut, Truthseekingsoul, Sunstone, Spinks, etc.) continue to point out the same fallacy - over, and over, and over - to the same individuals, it becomes obvious that that person isn't really trying to learn - they are clinging blindly to a logically invalid position. That is where the frustration comes in.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Vash]

Now you should throw in the politics of the religious right

politics? im sorry but i dont see how politics relates to the topic...and if given a choice i would prefer to leave politics out of it. if you must factor it in do so on both sides because the liberal left im sure has an agenda to counter-balance the religious right.

ID fails the definition of science but continues to cloak creationism with a patina of scientific criticism.

so...did you come to this conclusion before or after you read everything ID has to say? im just saying that if youre not going to look at something openly and honestly, why bother looking at all? just decide to believe what you want to believe and be done with it...save yourself some frustration.

 

[Steve]

Because it isn't reasonable - it's bad (twisted) logic. First, you have no reason to limit the moment that life came to be to two possibilities - abiogenisis or creationism.
Other possibilities may exist. Just because your mind cannot conceive of any other possibility does not preclude them. If you say it one thousand more times, it will not make it valid - it will only make it repetitive.

"When there are only two possible explanations, evidence against one is evidence for the other." Why should i abandon that logic if its reasonable? ouch, repeated it again, sorry
2 options! "was ID involved or not?"
When making that statement im not just thinking of abiogenisis or creationism, but rather ID or not ID. There are only 2 options either inteligence was involved or it was not. That is logical and reasonable.

What i found very interesting was this statement "Other possibilities may exist. Just because your mind cannot conceive of any other possibility does not preclude them." Is that not a perfect example of an "Argument from ignorance" The very thing you accuse me of! The very definition of an Argument from ignorance you presented condemns your own Argument.

Also any scenario anyone puts forth about the creation or arival of anything can have only 2 options inteligence is involved somwhere at some point for it to work or it isnt! simple, oh and its not bad (twisted) logic.

And like Vash pointed out Design Detection is a valid science. My arguments are not just based on my beliefs and ignorace but on science, for example i presented Scientific auguments befor about why i think the earth is young, these arguments were not based on my beliefs but rather science they just so happens to fit quite well with my beliefs , I find it interesting that it isnt the scientific "evidences" i put forth that are being descussed but rather you seem more intent on playing word games, id much rather talk about the evidence's people bring forth.


If you claim that Id arguments are all Arguments from ignorance, then consider this Scenario.

Scientists on the SETI project today pick up a whole 5 minites worth of "alien" music from another planet in another galaxy. They then claim that there must be intellegence on this other planet but then someone named "evolutionist" says no your wrong maybe somthing else happened and then puts forth his theory.
Now the Scientists on the SETI team think about this for a while (over 100 years, ) and in this time evolutionist's theory gains a considerable amount of momentum and support, there is alot of "evidence" put forth to support the theory over the 100 plus years and much of this "evidence" relies on older "evidence" to be applicable. Even a few of the Scientists on the SETI team begin to belive it, afterall the people would like to belive they are alone in the universe and never have to worry about the alien that may have made the music.
However some of Scientists on the SETI team remain sceptical and are unconvinced so instead of jumping on the bandwagon they go out and see if indeed the theory is as strong and flawless as it is often presented, especially considering by now some people have even started to regard it as no longer just a theory but fact!
While searching they find many flaws in evolutionist's theory and thus maintain that this music must be the result of inteligence. Some of the flaws they find are very obvious and tear away at the very foundations that are needed for evolution's theory to be considered even remotley possilble. Many get excited about the findings and start to share them, however the reaction by many isnt pleasent. Rather then what would normally happen in scentific circles these people are mocked and criticised and even though many people will say that scientific theorys are just that theorys it starts to seem like this one is regarded as untouchable for some reason. Many of the new evidences are dismissed because they dont match the theory even though its these same people that say the evidence should create the theory.
Afterall this the SETI scientists still hold to their original logic, the very logic that gave them the idea for the SETI project, and they maintain that this music must the result of inteligence.
When evolutionist hears about all the evidence that contradicts his theory he becomes upset and rather then concede that he may have been wrong he refuses to even look at the evidence with an open mind, he decides that if he cant win then they cant either thus as a last resort he lashes out against the SETI scientists in an effort to tear down there original theory and logic that "if you detect strong evidence of ID and there is no other plausible explaination for it then its safe to say it was Inteligently Designed"
As a result many of his arguments become argument from ignorance.
He says things like "you cant prove that its the result of Inteligence, you have never seen the alien, maybe there is some other explaination that we havnt yet discovered!"

Construct your hypothesis, make some predictions, conduct the experiment, give us the data. Of course, since you adhere to the scientific method, I'm sure you'll be willing to modify your theory (hypothesis) in the face of any evidence that goes against your original predictions...

Ive already done that in this very thread, i gave my theory and then provided data that supports the theory!
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=132785#post132785

If you can read, and digest them, please check any of the thousand or so posts put forth by PW and Ceridwen. Check out the book The Descent of Man or any of the hundreds of books that have been written to explain the engine that drives evolution (natural selection). Here's a radical idea - throw off the yoke of your religiously based bias, and actually take a Biology class at a local university - one that will specifically address the Theory of Evolution. Check your dogma at the door, and you might learn something before posting on here again about how little evidence there is to support evolution. While you're doing that, I'll be scouring the listing of classes at my local university, looking for a class on Intelligent Design. My guess is that you will have a much easier time finding your course than I will finding mine.

Oh dont worry i understand the evolution theory, so lets discuss it!

just be honest enough with yourself to admit that you make decisions about abiogenisis, creationism, evolution, and ID based on revealed faith and not on rational thought, scientific data, or a logically derived thought process.

My decisions about the things you have mentioned there are based on rational thought, scientific data and is logical. My beliefs arnt compromised by this either. With either theory faith is involved, its foolish to say otherwise and i accept that, someone who dosnt belive in an Inteligent Designer or God must have faith that abiogenesis took place and even though there is no proof it takes faith and alot! They need to have faith that all the matter and energy everywhere either came from nothing (without the help of a creator) or that it has always existed id say this takes tremendous faith!
We should agree that our best course of action would be to see which theory is most likely and go from there.

The only difference between her position and yours is that she is not trying to twist logic, misapply scientific evidence, or argue from ignorance. She takes her position on FAITH.

"twist logic" - was ID involved or not? = 2 options! sounds logical to me. If i can show that it couldnt have happened without an ID you have to resort to an Argument from ignorance i think i could even guess the words you would use "Other possibilities may exist. Just because your mind cannot conceive of any other possibility does not preclude them." But of course you would never do that.

If i showed you somthing complex that apeared to be the result of design and intellegence and stated that i belive it is the result of intellegence would you say No thats twisted logic? even if you had never meet the designer wouldnt you conclude that, the most probable option is that it was designed? If you wanted to convince me that no its not the result of intellegence you would need to show how thats possible or fall back to your very own Argument from ignorance.

misapply scientific evidence? wanna back that statement up? what scientific evidence have i misapplied?

 

[Yerda]

yes, i think you are talking about abiogenesis (aka evolution)
vs. biogenesis (aka ID) at least, thats my meager understanding of it so far. seems to me so far that no matter how you slice it, its one or the other...

No Vash that is not what I'm talking about.

Pah has repeatedly pointed out in several threads (including this one I believe) that evolution is not a synonym of abiogenesis. Even the title of this thread and the author appear to have made this mistake (although since Lisa is a biologist she probably knew this).

I can slice it in ways that encompass both ideas (I.D. and evolution), as many members of this forum do. If life was intelligently designed it would not preclude it from evolution. Evolution is:

"any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

Bugger all to do with genesis of any description you will notice.

Intelligent design is concerned with the origins of life on this planet at least.

In this sense these two models do not contradict each other and NetDoc, No*s and a couple of others could tell you that they see it as a bit of both.

Here is what I'm talking about:

The question is whether life was intelligently design to be what it is (i.e. God or other entity created humans, sparrows, and pea-plants as they are), or evolved to what it is (from a possible common ancestor be it naturally formed or otherwise).

In this sense they are mutually exclusive.

The question of evidence then, where does it point? This is where TVOR, Pah, and a few others will repeatedly assert that there is no evidence for I.D. including the distinctive lack of an intelligent designer which of-course would appear central to such a hypothesis.

 

[Steve]

The question is whether life was intelligently design to be what it is (i.e. God or other entity created humans, sparrows, and pea-plants as they are), or evolved to what it is (from a possible common ancestor be it naturally formed or otherwise).

In this sense they are mutually exclusive.

That actually isnt the question, those who belive ID do not assert that "God or other entity created humans, sparrows, and pea-plants as they are" We do not belive God specifically created the many different species like the chiuaua for example. We do belive natural selection, selective breeding etc occors.
However Natural selection or selective breeding is chosing from what already exists. You cant breed dogs and eventually get a dog with wings, no matter how long you try. If you start with a few Dogs with alot of variety in there DNA then you could selectivly breed only the small ones and eventually that would become a new species that can no longer grow big because it has lots the information needed to be big, that was the point breed that out of its dna.
If the argument is weather Natural selection or selective breeding is real then we can consider this thread closed because both sides have agreed.
The Question really is where did the original Infomation thats in the DNA come from, the information thats being selected in selective breeding or being preserved thanks to Natural selection. Did it create itself or is it the result of an Inteligent Designer.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If the argument is weather Natural selection or selective breeding is real then we can consider this thread closed because both sides have agreed.

So you accept, for example, the evolution of Cetaceans from land-based predators and of man from the australopithecines?

 

[Vash]

When evolutionist hears about all the evidence that contradicts his theory he becomes upset and rather then concede that he may have been wrong he refuses to even look at the evidence with an open mind, he decides that if he cant win then they cant either thus as a last resort he lashes out against the SETI scientists in an effort to tear down there original theory and logic that "if you detect strong evidence of ID and there is no other plausible explaination for it then its safe to say it was Inteligently Designed"
As a result many of his arguments become argument from ignorance.
He says things like "you cant prove that its the result of Inteligence, you have never seen the alien, maybe there is some other explaination that we havnt yet discovered!"

yes I think this is exactly what TVOR was doing when he said:

Other possibilities may exist. Just because your mind cannot conceive of any other possibility does not preclude them.

TVOR's emotions and misconceptions are clouding his judgement. He is so preoccupied with finding a logical flaw in the technical structure of other posts that he can't or won't see or acknowledge their point...and he also can't or won't see the hidden emotional bias at the heart of his own posts. "Recent scientific research has demonstrated that biases thought to be absent or extinguished remain as "mental residue" in most of us." http://www.tolerance.org/hidden_bias/

ill give him this - its a clever tactic...if you dont want to really listen. first, you ignore the point they are trying to make by finding some technical flaw in the structure of their post, then you shift focus away from their point and onto the technicality...and with a smug condescending tone...occasionally throwing in snide remarks, then when they are angry, frustrated, and totally on the defensive you play the 'show me evidence' card or the 'infinite possibilities' card...and they cant (hopefully) spot the hidden emotional prejudice of your own arguments.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

TVOR's emotions and misconceptions are clouding his judgement. He is so preoccupied with finding a logical flaw in the technical structure of other posts that he can't or won't see or acknowledge their point...and he also can't or won't see the hidden emotional bias at the heart of his own posts. "Recent scientific research has demonstrated that biases thought to be absent or extinguished remain as "mental residue" in most of us." http://www.tolerance.org/hidden_bias/

ill give him this - its a clever tactic...if you dont want to really listen. first, you find some technical flaw in the structure of their post, then you shift focus away from their point and onto the technicality...and with a smug condescending tone...occasionally throwing in snide remarks, then they are angry, frustrated, and totally on the defensive...and then you play the 'show me evidence' card or the 'infinite possibilities' card...and they cant (hopefully) spot the illogical, emotional prejudice of your own arguments.

It's quite frankly hard to imagine a more puerile, meandering, and ineffective ad hominem.

Far less tiresome would have been some attempt to address homology and vestigial structure with the aid of your Intelligent Design 'theory'. Unfortunately, what you've demonstrated to date is an embarrassing ignorance of the existence of such structures and their import. This is not in itself a serious deficiency. It is, however, both serious and surprising when found in someone who would speak with authority about issues of biology and morphology.

I ask that you review post #53 and explain why, in your opinion, descent with modification is not the best inference.

 

[Vash]

"If you guess the answer to a math problem, some part of your brain just did the problem really fast. If you have a hunch someone is lying, some part of your brain put together potentially a whole @#$%load of information but came to that conclusion logically. If it's not the conscious part that's connected to the language areas, the results of the thinking have to come out as emotions or intuitions. Maybe not all of your brain can access the language areas. Or maybe just not at any given moment. So unconscious or intuitive thought is just logic with the steps in the thought process hidden."

people who are trained in logic (even Spock) tend to make fallicies out of arrogance:

Fallacy One: All intuition is automatically illogical.

Fallacy Two: All emotions are automatically illogical.

Fallacy Three: All subconscious is automatically illogical.

Captain Kirk and Bones loved nothing more than pointing out these fallicies to Spock

the truth is intuitive logic = common sence

 

[No*s]

*****MOD POST*****

Let's keep this civilized and address only each other's points.​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Vash, please review post #53 and explain why, in your opinion, descent with modification is not the best inference.

 

[Pah]

Vash, please review post #53 and explain why, in your opinion, descent with modification is not the best inference.

post #53 -
Eur J Morphol. 35(1): 25-30, February 1997

On the development of Cetacean extremities:
I. Hind limb rudimentation in the Spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata)

D Sedmera, I Misek & M Klima

The Cetacea are group of animals which have completely lost their hind limbs during the course of evolution as a result of their entirely aquatic mode of life. It is known, however, that during their embryonal period, the hind limb buds are temporarily present. The control mechanisms of this regression are not yet understood, and vestigial limbs can sometimes be found in adults. The aim of the present study is to describe the course of hind limb rudimentation during prenatal development of Stenella attenuata (Spotted dolphin) at tissue and cell levels and compare the results with other natural or experimentally induced amelias. Hind limb buds of dolphin embryos, CRL 10-30 mm, were examined histologically. Before total disappearance, they show histodifferentiation comparable with other mammals. Initially, they form the apical ectodermal ridge, which soon regresses. The mesenchyme undergoes the process of condensation to form anlagens of prospective skeletal elements. These condensations are surrounded by vascular plexuses. During the course of rudimentation, some mesenchymal cells die, while the others are incorporated into the body wall. Nerve ingrowth into rudimentary limb buds was also detected. The temporary presence of hind limb rudiments in cetacean embryos can be regarded as a good example of recapitulation of phylogenesis in ontogenesis.

- see Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes

"Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes" is a link

 

[Vash]

Vash, please review post #53 and explain why, in your opinion, descent with modification is not the best inference.

I remember discussing this on another forum years ago...if memory serves descent with modification is simply the hypothesis that all life is related through descent from unknown ancestors in the past, right?

My personal opinion is irrelevant. I found this paper which may explain to you why an ID supporter might not have faith in descent with modification. (some may not even think ID and descent with modification are mutually exclusive) in case you cant bring yourself to read the whole thing, these four paragraphs seem to me to summarize the ID position pretty well:

Ask your neighborhood evolutionary biologist how he knows intelligent design is unnecessary to explain homology, and odds are he will say something like, "Well, we have a demonstrated natural mechanism which accounts for the phenomenon." In actuality, however, the mechanism has not been demonstrated; rather, homology is simply taken as prima facie evidence of descent, and design is excluded out of hand.

The problem is unintentionally illustrated by biologist Tim Berra in his 1990 book, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism (Stanford University Press). According to Berra, "If you look at a 1953 Corvette and compare it to the latest model, only the most general resemblances are evident, but if you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious. This is what paleontologists do with fossils, and the evidence is so solid and comprehensive that it cannot be denied by reasonable people." (p. 117)

As the title of his book indicates, Berra's primary purpose is to show that living organisms are the result of naturalistic evolution rather than intelligent design. Structural similarities among automobiles, however, even similarities between older and newer models (which Berra calls "descent with modification") are due to construction according to pre-existing patterns, i.e., to design. Ironically, therefore, Berra's analogy shows that even striking similarities are not sufficient to exclude design-based explanations. In order to demonstrate naturalistic evolution, it is necessary to show that the mechanism by which organisms are constructed (unlike the mechanism by which automobiles are constructed) does not involve design.

One could simply postulate that the mechanism of biological evolution is naturalistic, arguing that the postulate is justified because science is limited to studying natural mechanisms. Although such a philosophical move may seem very reasonable, it gravely compromises the status of evolutionary biology as an objective science. Asserting that something is objectively true implies that it is based on empirical evidence, not merely assumed a priori on philosophical grounds. A methodological exclusion of design-based explanations constitutes a limitation on one's science, not a description of objective reality. If evolutionary biologists want to show that the actual mechanism of evolution does not involve intelligent design, they cannot merely exclude the possibility a priori, but must take the more difficult approach of proposing and corroborating a naturalistic alternative.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

"When there are only two possible explanations, evidence against one is evidence for the other." Why should i abandon that logic if its reasonable? … That is logical and reasonable.

No – it isn't.

…"Just because your mind cannot conceive of any other possibility does not preclude them." Is that not a perfect example of an "Argument from ignorance" The very thing you accuse me of! The very definition of an Argument from ignorance you presented condemns your own Argument.

Are you trying to make me look good? There is no possible way that someone can misunderstand this particular logical fallacy worse than you have demonstrated here. It's just not possible.

… simple, oh and its not bad (twisted) logic.

Yes – it is.

And like Vash pointed out Design Detection is a valid science.

No – it isn't. That is why the the National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education have described ID as pseudoscience.

… for example i presented Scientific auguments befor about why i think the earth is young, these arguments were not based on my beliefs but rather science they just so happens to fit quite well with my beliefs …

Very good. Wrong, but good. What you are truly doing is bastardizing true science, and invoking pseudoscience in a pitiful attempt to validate your religious beliefs. Then, you are trying to pass it off as "good, sound science". I know that it pains you mightily to hear this, but it isn't working – no one here (other than people with a not-so-hidden agenda) are buying it.

If you claim that Id arguments are all Arguments from ignorance, then consider this Scenario.

Scientists on the SETI project today pick up a whole 5 minites worth of "alien" music from another planet in another galaxy …

You took about half a page to build a hypothetical situation around the SETI project, to bolster your position on ID. Only one minor technicality – you based your entire hypothetical situation on the argument that SETI had produced EVIDENCE. Just in case you haven't read the foregoing 10 pages of this thread – virtually everyone on here is asking you to provide EVIDENCE. Lacking that, your hypothetical situation damns your own position. Why am I not surprised?

As a result many of his arguments become argument from ignorance.

Stop it – the Professor is going to think you are intentionally throwing this debate, to ensure that I get a good grade!

… My decisions about the things you have mentioned there are based on rational thought, scientific data and is logical.

No, they aren't – and no, it isn't. To be totally honest, the more you argue, the more you reveal how little you do know about logic. Better to quit while you're behind.

"twist logic" - was ID involved or not? = 2 options! sounds logical to me. If i can show that it couldnt have happened without an ID you have to resort to an Argument from ignorance i think i could even guess the words you would use "Other possibilities may exist. Just because your mind cannot conceive of any other possibility does not preclude them." But of course you would never do that.

This statement demonstrates an amazing lack of conversancy with the fallacy. I even posted the text from Wikipedia, to help you understand the flaw in your position – and you have somehow managed to twist the passage, with the words right in front of you. I would not have thought that possible.

… If you wanted to convince me that no its not the result of intellegence you would need to show how thats possible or fall back to your very own Argument from ignorance.

WOW!! Now you are going to put the onus of proving ID on me? You have to stop this – my sides are beginning to ache. I will politely refuse the burden of proof for your claim. Even if I wanted to take up the argument, I would have to invent some evidence or run the risk of making ludicrous, unsubstantiated claims.

TVOR's emotions and misconceptions are clouding his judgement. He is so preoccupied with finding a logical flaw in the technical structure of other posts that he can't or won't see or acknowledge their point...and he also can't or won't see the hidden emotional bias at the heart of his own posts. "

Recent scientific research has demonstrated that biases thought to be absent or extinguished remain as "mental residue" in most of us." http://www.tolerance.org/hidden_bias/

ill give him this - its a clever tactic...if you dont want to really listen. first, you ignore the point they are trying to make by finding some technical flaw in the structure of their post, then you shift focus away from their point and onto the technicality...and with a smug condescending tone...occasionally throwing in snide remarks, then when they are angry, frustrated, and totally on the defensive you play the 'show me evidence' card or the 'infinite possibilities' card...and they cant (hopefully) spot the hidden emotional prejudice of your own arguments.

Most lawyers learn early in law school that the most effective way of conducting the ad hominem is to insinuate that their opponent is confused, or ignorant of the facts – and therefore, the other person's position is inherently flawed. By the time a lawyer has practiced for a year or two, they fully understand that this line of attack only works on juries that are loaded with laypeople that do not have the ability to discern it. Judges roll their eyes, and the opposing lawyers must then point out the fallacy. The tactic rarely, if ever, works. In logic, this tactic is known as "Poisoning the Well".
Personally, I have no problem with this ad hominem attack. I think it clearly demonstrates the strength of your position concerning evidence in support of ID – there simply is none, and consequently, you turn your attack to me. I have to admit that your earlier post led me to believe that you were somehow disappointed in my verbiage – that you felt I had somehow "attacked" you personally. I apologized (sincerely), and expected the tone of this thread to take a marked turn away from such phraseology. I see now that your earlier post was only meant to paint me as a villain. With the post I have quoted above, I think the roles have clearly been defined.

Thanks,
TVOR

PS - for the sake of truth in advertising, you might want to change your religion (as stated in the profile box) from "Neutral" to "Fundamentalist". At least it would allow others to know whom they are talking to, without taking ten or twenty posts to discover the truth.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My personal opinion is irrelevant. ...

Simple awareness is often curative. Nevertheless, even if you choose to be an irrelevant ID apologist, your avoidance of the question remains instructive.