Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[SkepticThinker]

So, it's all about who got the most scientists and not about the facts anymore? You all know that none of us here are experts on the subject. We all read articles/wiki and C&P most of the time and sometimes, if not most of the times, pretend we knew what we are talking about, but the fact is, we do not. People who studied this do not engage in forum like this. We are the modern day barber shop around the corner putting our .02cents. So, please do not tell me that you knew more than me, unless you have a Ph.D. of course.

It's about the EVIDENCE.

 

[SkepticThinker]

One more thing guys, can you please explain it to me, ‘cause I really don’t have any idea at all, how they got the millions of years of dating the fossils they’ve found in New Mexico? By what standard of studies or age assignments did they compare it from?

Maybe nobody knows what you're talking about?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

One more thing guys, can you please explain it to me, ‘cause I really don’t have any idea at all, how they got the millions of years of dating the fossils they’ve found in New Mexico? By what standard of studies or age assignments did they compare it from?

It's compared to other dating methods. There are many of them.

Stephen Meyer knew what he is talking about and that what the reason “He is a Ph.D.”, you do not. You need to understand this.

How about instead of telling me I need to "understand," you understand what I said. He is a Ph.D. He is not a scientist.

 

[Unification]

They are both right, intelligent design and evolution. Evolution is intelligent design.

All the discrepancies and missing links, the accelerated rapid rate and change of paces throughout the evolutionary process at certain times, is due to where everything originated from in the first place, the cosmos, the brain of "God." The entire process of evolution and life/consciousness, the accelerated rate of knowledge the past two centuries, the rate of intelligence, where everything derives from, is from the cosmos. Always has been. For billions of years. Cambrian explosion, and everything else. The book of life, the book of genetics. The pure conscious aspect of "consciousness and life" is the entire bible. All different forms of energy/light and DNA are from an outpouring from the cosmos, from celestial bodies, in forms of energy, and DNA. Life/consciousness....Our brains, as well as everything else, animals, plants, aquatic life... Are receivers. Supernova 1987, Eta Carinae, meteors, stars, the sun, etc etc etc. It all sustains life and changes life as the process of conscious and physical evolution carry on.
Newton's laws and Einstein's relativity really do explain it perfectly, when it comes to all of this, our human bodies and brains are not exempt from these laws.

Conscious evolution and physical evolution go hand in hand. Evolution is intelligent design. That invisible undetectable force that holds everything together and allows us to experience life. Religions and everyone who speaks for religions just have no idea what ID and consciousness is and distort it all completely.

Science has already proven this many times in many different ways, indirectly and unaware of it. We can change a cell with just a baby tiny little bit of electricity... Imagine the change in cells (ourselves, in our brains, and all life forms) consciously and physically from the massive, endless outpouring of all sorts of subatomic particles, gases, energy, DNA, and light from the cosmos, celestial bodies. Our evolution of intelligence and knowledge derives from the same place.

 

[Curious George]

I guess you’re one of them? Since dating fossils is part of evolution, can you kindly please educate me on how you understood the millions of years from the mass extinction?

What are you talking about? Can you be more specific.

I listened to your clip. I am not sure that the title was relevant. It was a panel discussion and questions. Is there something particular in the clip you wanted to discuss?

 

[jonathan180iq]

I guess you’re one of them? Since dating fossils is part of evolution, can you kindly please educate me on how you understood the millions of years from the mass extinction?

I'll start by addressing the original video which you posted and subsequently entered you into the debate.

I just finished watching it, and any objective observer should be able to recognize that for all the postulating and posturing of both sides, there wasn't very much information presented at all.
Stephen Meyer (whom I rather liked as a speaker) for example, brought up his idea of "loci of design" at certain periods along the geologic, evolutionary, and biological timeline. He argues that at these certain moments of intelligent "intervention" we can see or study the influx of new information into a system and attributed this injection to a designer. Behe, similarly, seemingly admits to sharing this view, going so far as you admit to Weber that it's entirely possible that the Design was front-loaded with data and allowed to expand over the millenia. Meyer pointed out a couple of the obvious places where he interprets loci of design, including the Cambrian Explosion, but then almost refused to give examples of how he distinguishes what constitutes an example of intelligent infusion. THEN, later in the debate, Meyer joined Behe (and the guy on the far left) in praising the arguments for the apparent design in eyes of humans and other vertebra... The question that I would ask is why design is apparent to them in every aspect of the natural world, when they've seemingly only made the argument that certain previous loci of design only seemed to inject the material required for these natural processes to take place.

If their previous argument indicates that at they can observe loci of design based on these apparent booms of information, then why do they also see design in each and every object, like the eye, if not for bias?

Regradless of that argument, at what point did these guys actually "mop the floor" with the critics panel? There were no evidences presented other than arguments of interpretation of their position. Both sides abandoned their slides and nothing was actually accomplished through argument presentation. They all just bickered about how ID should be taken seriously. Even the moderator, at one point, mentioned that generally when a new idea is presented the proponents for the new idea simply tried their best to present the evidence for their idea. The fact of the matter, there was very little of that in the debate. Even the guy sitting between Behe and Meyer admitted that ID shouldn't be taught in the classroom because it was premature of an idea at best...

So, again, where's the evidence for the argument other than making a plea to interpretation?

As for the second part of your question, I'm not really sure what you're asking for. Do you mean you want to know how the dating of ancient specimens or organisms is achieved with any accuracy?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Just to continue the appeal to authority route here just 2 people who have debunked Meyers work:

Paul Myers (note that the qualifications are in relevant fields).

• Associate Professor

• Ph.D Biology., University of Oregon
• B.S. Zoology, University of Washington, Seattle

University of Minnesota, Morris | Academics | Biology | Faculty

or how about:

Jerry Coyne.
Coyne graduated with a B.S. in biology from the College of William & Mary in 1971. He started graduate work at Rockefeller University under Theodosius Dobzhansky before logistical complications (military conscription) forced a hiatus. He then earned a Ph.D. in biology at Harvard University in 1978, studying under Richard Lewontin, and went on to do a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of California, Davis with Timothy Prout. He was awarded the Guggenheim Fellowship in 1989, was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2007, and received the "Emperor Has No Clothes" award from the Freedom from Religion Foundation in 2011.

Coyne has served as President (2011) and Vice President (1996) of the Society for the Study of Evolution, and as Associate Editor of Evolution (1985–1988; 1994–2000) and The American Naturalist (1990–1993). He currently teaches evolutionary biology, speciation, genetic analysis, social issues and scientific knowledge, scientific speaking and writing.

Jerry Coyne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you want make appeals to authority a yardstick then you will lose, because the overwhelming number of qualified scientists in the life sciences field all accept evolution.

And of course Paul Myers denies free will also.

PauI Myers: I always thought free will was philosophical micturition anyhow
I always thought free will was philosophical micturition anyhow

So again, that is the relevant credentials of Paul Z Myers for talking about origins, that he does not understand choosing, at all.

And creationists will always explain in terms of choosing. Like with argumentation about a fine tuned universe, then the argumentation is that there are possible ways in which it can turn out, and that the chosen way facilitates life. You cannot argue reasonably about that when you don't understand how choosing works.

 

[JM2C]

Maybe nobody knows what you're talking about?

How come this guy got an answer and you don’t?

It's compared to other dating methods. There are many of them.

 

[JM2C]

It's compared to other dating methods. There are many of them.

Can you be more specific? is it carbon dating or radiodating? I need to know from you guys cause I don't KNOW nothing about this so please explain it to me.

 

[Curious George]

I'll start by addressing the original video which you posted and subsequently entered you into the debate.

I just finished watching it, and any objective observer should be able to recognize that for all the postulating and posturing of both sides, there wasn't very much information presented at all.
Stephen Meyer (whom I rather liked as a speaker) for example, brought up his idea of "loci of design" at certain periods along the geologic, evolutionary, and biological timeline. He argues that at these certain moments of intelligent "intervention" we can see or study the influx of new information into a system and attributed this injection to a designer. Behe, similarly, seemingly admits to sharing this view, going so far as you admit to Weber that it's entirely possible that the Design was front-loaded with data and allowed to expand over the millenia. Meyer pointed out a couple of the obvious places where he interprets loci of design, including the Cambrian Explosion, but then almost refused to give examples of how he distinguishes what constitutes an example of intelligent infusion. THEN, later in the debate, Meyer joined Behe (and the guy on the far left) in praising the arguments for the apparent design in eyes of humans and other vertebra... The question that I would ask is why design is apparent to them in every aspect of the natural world, when they've seemingly only made the argument that certain previous loci of design only seemed to inject the material required for these natural processes to take place.

If their previous argument indicates that at they can observe loci of design based on these apparent booms of information, then why do they also see design in each and every object, like the eye, if not for bias?

Regradless of that argument, at what point did these guys actually "mop the floor" with the critics panel? There were no evidences presented other than arguments of interpretation of their position. Both sides abandoned their slides and nothing was actually accomplished through argument presentation. They all just bickered about how ID should be taken seriously. Even the moderator, at one point, mentioned that generally when a new idea is presented the proponents for the new idea simply tried their best to present the evidence for their idea. The fact of the matter, there was very little of that in the debate. Even the guy sitting between Behe and Meyer admitted that ID shouldn't be taught in the classroom because it was premature of an idea at best...

So, again, where's the evidence for the argument other than making a plea to interpretation?

I thought that the general thrust of the whole discussion centered around "why ID" is not given the same level of respect as other scientific theories and whether and why there are biases against ID. However, I do not think that we saw a fair discussion on this. And, I think that an idea that was batted around was that there are political motives behind the "theory." One panelist suggested that while there may be political motivations the theory should be addressed scientifically on evidence alone.

When proponents of any theory grasp at straws for their position, and when those straws disappear grasp at more, I can understand people, at a certain point, shutting down and no longer listening, because the image that comes acrooss is that a person is willing to reach for anything in order to confirm a bias.

That said, I do not think any theory should be dismissed out of hand. And, actual scientific undertakings should not be prejudiced because some prior people have in desperation put forth whacky ideas.

That there is evidence of bias in the scientific community is a legitimate complaint about the scientific community. However, this does not disprove evolution or prove ID. Rather it only proves that regardless of personal beliefs some people will insert bias into there study.

 

[JM2C]

What are you talking about? Can you be more specific.

It's compared to other dating methods. There are many of them.

 

[David M]

So, it's all about who got the most scientists and not about the facts anymore?

According to you it is. You started with the appeals to authority, I just showed that invoking that fallacy really does you no good whatsoever.

You all know that none of us here are experts on the subject. We all read articles/wiki and C&P most of the time and sometimes, if not most of the times, pretend we knew what we are talking about, but the fact is, we do not. People who studied this do not engage in forum like this. We are the modern day barber shop around the corner putting our .02cents. So, please do not tell me that you knew more than me, unless you have a Ph.D. of course.

Some of us do put in the time and effort to read scientific papers you know, I am sure that there are others here who do know what they are talking about.

I have seen professors engage on other forums that debated evolution and creation, Prof Per Ahlberg was one.

 

[Curious George]

Still am I to gather from this that you are asking for an explanation of the various forms of radiometric dating and geological dating?

Well, radioactive isotopes decay at a constant rate. Thus we can use mathematical formulas to calculate age based on the amount of specific isotopes.

Geological dating is a little harder to explain neatly because there are so many different kinds. But this ranges from looking at erosion, stratigraphy, thermoluminescence, paleomagnetic dating, and counting of various geological features such as ice caps, tree rings, coral rings etc.

Hope this helps.

 

[David M]

Can you be more specific? is it carbon dating or radiodating? I need to know from you guys cause I don't KNOW nothing about this so please explain it to me.

Carbon dating is one type of radiometric dating, of which there are over a dozen. But Carbon Dating isn't used on fossils and does not extand back more than 100,000 years (as a maximum, its more normally 60-70,000 years). Those dozen or more dating methods are in agreement for samples for which multiple methods can be used. They also agree with methods such as Thermoluminescensce Dating or Optical Dating.

Then there are more specialised methods such as Dendrochronology and Tephrochronology.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I thought that the general thrust of the whole discussion centered around "why ID" is not given the same level of respect as other scientific theories and whether and why there are biases against ID. However, I do not think that we saw a fair discussion on this. And, I think that an idea that was batted around was that there are political motives behind the "theory." One panelist suggested that while there may be political motivations the theory should be addressed scientifically on evidence alone.

When proponents of any theory grasp at straws for their position, and when those straws disappear grasp at more, I can understand people, at a certain point, shutting down and no longer listening, because the image that comes acrooss is that a person is willing to reach for anything in order to confirm a bias.

That said, I do not think any theory should be dismissed out of hand. And, actual scientific undertakings should not be prejudiced because some prior people have in desperation put forth whacky ideas.

That there is evidence of bias in the scientific community is a legitimate complaint about the scientific community. However, this does not disprove evolution or prove ID. Rather it only proves that regardless of personal beliefs some people will insert bias into there study.

Yeah, absolutely. The arguments that the ID guys were making about some obvious biases within the scientific community were totally legitimate. But I kept wondering what that had to do with the validity of ID at all...

I think ultimately the fact that the entire conversation was staged at Biola University, and the fact that the ID proponent controlled the majority of the speaking time, and the fact that they used that majority to complain about biases instead of presenting their arguments says a lot about the state of the ID argument. These guys were the biggest names in the ID field, and while they spoke intelligently and eloquently, they didn't really provide any substance to back their proposed idea. I thought that was a big waste of their time, honestly. I kept hoping someone would chime in and get the whole conversation back on topic.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Carbon dating is one type of radiometric dating, of which there are over a dozen. But Carbon Dating isn't used on fossils and does not extand back more than 100,000 years (as a maximum, its more normally 60-70,000 years). Those dozen or more dating methods are in agreement for samples for which multiple methods can be used. They also agree with methods such as Thermoluminescensce Dating or Optical Dating.

Then there are more specialised methods such as Dendrochronology and Tephrochronology.

I know this sounds a little off the wall, but a good example of this can be seen in an episode Myth Hunters, where a French Forensic Scientist used several different methods of dating on the supposed remains of Joan of Arc to establish the age of the specimen. He didn't just use one method and then proclaim an answer. He used several different methods, and even sent a few blind samples to various laboratories and had them tested the same way to further validate the accuracy of the numbers. Once all of the data is studied, and a consensus is formed, then you can make relatively accurate statements of dates. This is also commonly why you'll see dates and ages given within a range, as with most statistical or mathematical models.

 

[Unification]

They are both right, intelligent design and evolution. Evolution is intelligent design.

All the discrepancies and missing links, the accelerated rapid rate and change of paces throughout the evolutionary process at certain times, is due to where everything originated from in the first place, the cosmos, the brain of "God." The entire process of evolution and life/consciousness, the accelerated rate of knowledge the past two centuries, the rate of intelligence, where everything derives from, is from the cosmos. Always has been. For billions of years. Cambodian explosion, and everything else. The book of life, the book of genetics. The pure conscious aspect of "consciousness and life" is the entire bible. All different forms of energy/light and DNA are from an outpouring from the cosmos, from celestial bodies, in forms of energy, and DNA. Life/consciousness....Our brains, as well as everything else, animals, plants, aquatic life... Are receivers. Supernova 1987, Eta Carinae, meteors, stars, the sun, etc etc etc. It all sustains life and changes life as the process of conscious and physical evolution carry on.
Newton's laws and Einstein's relativity really do explain it perfectly, when it comes to all of this, our human bodies and brains are not exempt from these laws.

Conscious evolution and physical evolution go hand in hand. Evolution is intelligent design. That invisible undetectable force that holds everything together and allows us to experience life. Religions and everyone who speaks for religions just have no idea what ID and consciousness is and distort it all completely.

Science has already proven this many times in many different ways, indirectly and unaware of it. We can change a cell with just a baby tiny little bit of electricity... Imagine the change in cells (ourselves, in our brains, and all life forms) consciously and physically from the massive, endless outpouring of all sorts of subatomic particles, gases, energy, DNA, and light from the cosmos, celestial bodies. Our evolution of intelligence and knowledge derives from the same place.

"While primitive humans of the Middle Paleolithic hunted prey and sheltered in caves in Africa, a distant star eighteen times more massive than the Sun, located faraway in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) endured a catastrophic collapse as it reached the end of its life. As the star caved in, its outer layers rebounded off its dense core and blasted outwards, ripping the star apart in a supernova. Some 160,000 years later the light of this supernova, travelling at 300 million metres per second, finally reached Earth to shine in Southern Hemisphere skies on 24 February 1987."

In case anyone isn't aware, technology , knowledge, information and intelligence has rapidly advanced from 1987 until now.

 

[Unification]

"While primitive humans of the Middle Paleolithic hunted prey and sheltered in caves in Africa, a distant star eighteen times more massive than the Sun, located faraway in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) endured a catastrophic collapse as it reached the end of its life. As the star caved in, its outer layers rebounded off its dense core and blasted outwards, ripping the star apart in a supernova. Some 160,000 years later the light of this supernova, travelling at 300 million metres per second, finally reached Earth to shine in Southern Hemisphere skies on 24 February 1987."

In case anyone isn't aware, technology , knowledge, information and intelligence has rapidly advanced from 1987 until now.

 

[Unification]

So you didn't mean to insinuate some sort of scientific connection to Biblical creation myths, as if the writers of the Bible were writing from their perspectives yet guided by the Omniscient hand of god who simultaneously wrote about scientific creation which man would only to discover thousands of years after the fact thanks to technological advances? I mean, that's what you were getting to, isn't it?


Again, you hinted that Adam was DNA (and thus created first) and that Eve represents RNA (being created second)... That's simply not a supported view outside of creationist thinking. How does a more complex form precede a simpler construct?

It doesn't.

The RNA World and the Origins of Life - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

RNA world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What Came Before DNA? | DiscoverMagazine.com

How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time -- ScienceDaily

 

[gnostic]

To JM2C

A person who has a PhDs in history and philosophy of science, don't make that person a scientist. And his field before his PhDs only cover geophysics with his BS, which has nothing do with life science (hence biology), so he is a geophysicist, not a biologist. History and philosophy of science are also unrelated fields to biology.

So no matter what his qualifications, Meyer doesn't qualify as a biologist, so anything he has to say about evolution, is worth little, and geophysics (in Earth science) and biology are to different branches/fields in science.

If Meyer had qualifications in biology or life science, which he clearly don't have, then perhaps you could say his PhD would be relevant.

And lastly, the only "accepted" science are those that can supply testable and verifiable evidences to support their ideas (especially "scientific" theory or hypothesis).

There are no evidences to support ID or creationism, because neither one of them have testable hypothesis, because a Designer or Creator is untestable. ID is nothing more than pseudoscience creationism, trying to masquerade as science.

Meyer and Behe have presented no evidences in that facade for a debate, and they had won no arguments against the theory of evolution, because of the lack EVIDENCES to support this fairytale Designer. There is no more evidences for Intelligent Designer than there is for elf or goblin.