Hey, ID Creationists!

[AlexanderG]

@Brian2 and @AlexanderG if it's not too much trouble, could you please move the "does god exist" debate to another thread? I'd like to keep this one focused on applying "design detection methods" to the COVID virus.

Thanks.

My post was about epistemology and I did tie it into ID, but maybe you want things more focused. That's fine.

 

[AlexanderG]

No, that's not so. See post 30. There is no way to define "design" in an objectively scientific way, so that researchers can agree when it is observed in nature.

Design can be detected in human artefacts, e.g. flint axeheads, or Paley's watch, but that is because we know how humans design things. Once you try attributing design to God, who is specifically presumed not to be bound by the laws of nature, it could take any form at all. So it becomes useless as a criterion for discriminating between one thing and another.

So no scientists (or no reputable ones) have said they have detected design. That's a myth.

Yes. We infer design through induction, using known past examples that we observed. We have no known past examples we've observed of universes coming into existence, nor any evidence for how the one universe we have access to arose. We cannot justifiably infer design.

Also, if the universe or biological life seems fine-tuned or too complex to arise naturally, then this argument would equally apply to a god. Wouldn't a god have to be equally finely tuned by "someone" else, since a god's nature could vary in infinite different ways, resulting in its nature inclining the god to create a different sort of universe, or nothing at all? And surely a god either exists by random chance or by the design of a higher intelligence? See, the invocation of a god or "intelligent designer" to solve these problems only pushes the problem back one step.

Any excuse or special pleading you use for the designer could equally apply to the thing you claim must have been designed.

 

[exchemist]

Yes. We infer design through induction, using known past examples that we observed. We have no known past examples we've observed of universes coming into existence, nor any evidence for how the one universe we have access to arose. We cannot justifiably infer design.

Also, if the universe or biological life seems fine-tuned or too complex to arise naturally, then this argument would equally apply to a god. Wouldn't a god have to be equally finely tuned by "someone" else, since a god's nature could vary in infinite different ways, resulting in its nature inclining the god to create a different sort of universe, or nothing at all? And surely a god either exists by random chance or by the design of a higher intelligence? See, the invocation of a god or "intelligent designer" to solve these problems only pushes the problem back one step.

Any excuse or special pleading you use for the designer could equally apply to the thing you claim must have been designed.

Yeah, I too want to stick to the issue of design, please.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Standard excuse # 1: "I could do it, but you wouldn't believe it anyways, so I won't."

What I'm doing is known as "calling the bluff" and taking note when they can't back up their claims.

I never said they could or couldn't do it - only that they have no incentive to do so.

Just like you - they are going to believe what they are going to believe - regardless of what the actual results are.

The only reason they would feel pressed upon to do it is if the naysayers were committed to believing as they do if it could be proven.

But you won't - so why should they?

And even though I'm not claiming they can prove anything - you should say "won't" rather than "can't" - when you said, "they can't back up their claims."

The only way you could determine that they "can't" as opposed to "won't" is if they attempted to back up their claims and failed.

You don't have that evidence - so you cannot logically or honestly make that claim.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well it is a natural virus

Is it? That's the question at hand.

so if they can detect design scientifically than they should be able to do that with Covid, but I don't know if they would detect human tinkering however in a natural virus.

We can't say until the ID creationists actually do something.

If some scientists say they have detected no design, how have they arrived at that without first running tests?
Those scientists should be able to test Covid to see if there was design as easily as the ID scientists.

Nope, that's the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. ID creationists are the ones claiming to have methods that can "detect design", so it falls on them to back that up.

 

[tas8831]

How does this have any bearing on any aspect of ID? Only in one way....

Scientists have “created [a virus] in a lab”?

If so, wasn’t intelligence involved in performing the feat?

From my angle, it bolsters ID.

From all other angles, the silence of the creationists shows otherwise.

 

[tas8831]

For myself actually, I don’t think that the Covid-19 virus was created de novo. It seems to have been a man-made alteration from some previously existing SARS corona ancestral strain.

Really?
The COVID lab-leak hypothesis: what scientists do and don’t know
Did coronavirus come from a lab? | New Scientist
These authors wanted to push the COVID-19 lab-leak theory. Instead they exposed its weaknesses

The empirical evidence, through experiments and observation, consistently reveals those limits…

Ah, empirical evidence. Where is Bechly, Meyers, Behe, Axe & others' empirical evidence for Yahweh creation/"design"?

Drs. Bechly, Meyers, Behe, Axe & others agree.

As Gerd Müller put it in his paper “Why an EES is necessary” on 18 Aug 2017, “The limitations of the MS theory are not only highlighted by the criticisms directed against several of its traditional tenets but also by the failure to address some of the most important phenomena of organismal evolution. The question, for instance, of how complex phenotypic organizations arise in evolution is sidestepped by the population theoretical account, as is the reciprocal influence of these features of higher levels of organization on the evolutionary process. Indeed, the MS theory lacks a theory of organization that can account for the characteristic features of phenotypic evolution, such as novelty, modularity, homology, homoplasy or the origin of lineage-defining body plans.”

Assertions by religious grifters do not impress - where are their tests/experiments re: their creation claims?
the SILENCE of creationists on that matter is like continuous thunderclaps.

As long as I’ve been posting here, you and other materialists have never acknowledged any deficits within evolutionary theory.

I've yet to see a post of yours that presents any such deficits of merit.

 

[tas8831]

Would it matter if they did or not?

You wouldn't believe them no matter what they concluded.

Especially if they concluded "COVID was made in a lab in China and illegally funded by the NIH. All kinds of evil spirit associated."
That sounds more like conspiracy theory garbage.

 

[tas8831]

You’re too inflammatory & volatile, man.

Why? Did he plagiarize a bunch of stuff?

Say - remember when you claimed that humans are more closely related to bananas than to bees, and this was supposedly some big problem for evolution? And I totally spanked you on that, then you didn't respond to me any more? I guess if you ignore refutations, you never have to admit error. Creationists are quote a bunch...

 

[Jose Fly]

Why? Did he plagiarize a bunch of stuff?

Say - remember when you claimed that humans are more closely related to bananas than to bees, and this was supposedly some big problem for evolution? And I totally spanked you on that, then you didn't respond to me any more? I guess if you ignore refutations, you never have to admit error. Creationists are quote a bunch...

First rule of conservatism......."No fair remembering".

 

[Kooky]

The supposed words of a God can be falsified I guess.

Many of them are unfalsifiable, too - any sort of religious doctrine or moral code, for example.

 

[Audie]

Yes. We infer design through induction, using known past examples that we observed. We have no known past examples we've observed of universes coming into existence, nor any evidence for how the one universe we have access to arose. We cannot justifiably infer design.

Also, if the universe or biological life seems fine-tuned or too complex to arise naturally, then this argument would equally apply to a god. Wouldn't a god have to be equally finely tuned by "someone" else, since a god's nature could vary in infinite different ways, resulting in its nature inclining the god to create a different sort of universe, or nothing at all? And surely a god either exists by random chance or by the design of a higher intelligence? See, the invocation of a god or "intelligent designer" to solve these problems only pushes the problem back one step.

Any excuse or special pleading you use for the designer could equally apply to the thing you claim must have been designed.

Its ok to just say you believe in God, so if course all the above.

 

[Audie]

Really?
The COVID lab-leak hypothesis: what scientists do and don’t know
Did coronavirus come from a lab? | New Scientist
These authors wanted to push the COVID-19 lab-leak theory. Instead they exposed its weaknesses

Ah, empirical evidence. Where is Bechly, Meyers, Behe, Axe & others' empirical evidence for Yahweh creation/"design"?

Assertions by religious grifters do not impress - where are their tests/experiments re: their creation claims?
the SILENCE of creationists on that matter is like continuous thunderclaps.

I've yet to see a post of yours that presents any such deficits of merit.

Since ToE is all phoney it should be super
easy to give at least one item to show its all wrong.

 

[Audie]

I never said they could or couldn't do it - only that they have no incentive to do so.

Just like you - they are going to believe what they are going to believe - regardless of what the actual results are.

The only reason they would feel pressed upon to do it is if the naysayers were committed to believing as they do if it could be proven.

But you won't - so why should they?

And even though I'm not claiming they can prove anything - you should say "won't" rather than "can't" - when you said, "they can't back up their claims."

The only way you could determine that they "can't" as opposed to "won't" is if they attempted to back up their claims and failed.

You don't have that evidence - so you cannot logically or honestly make that claim.

That is silly. There is enormous incentive.

Or give me the data, I will get the Nobel.
Maybe get credit for the greatest scientific discovery ever AND, winner of souls to the
Good side.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

That is silly. There is enormous incentive.

Or give me the data, I will get the Nobel.
Maybe get credit for the greatest scientific discovery ever AND, winner of souls to the
Good side.

I believe that that is a naive way to think about it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No, that's not so. See post 30. There is no way to define "design" in an objectively scientific way,

If this were true, then SETI would have been useless from its inception.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If this were true, then SETI would have been useless from its inception.

Do you even know what the people at SETI typically look for?

 

[Audie]

I believe that that is a naive way to think about it.

And i think your claim about incentive was that, or disingenuous.
I showed why.
Saying i am naive is merely an insult for which
you can give no explanation.

 

[Audie]

If this were true, then SETI would have been useless from its inception.

Too clever by one half.
Of course certain specific things can be shown
to have been designed.

You nor anyone has been able to make a general rule, an inclusive definition.

Go ahead and try.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

And i think your claim about incentive was that, or disingenuous.
I showed why.
Saying i am naive is merely an insult for which
you can give no explanation.

I didn't say that you were naive. I said that that way of thinking was naive.

No one is getting a Nobel for "proving" that COVID was made in a lab.

All you'd get is Feds chasing you, social media banning you and the MSM smearing you.

World governments are hell-bent on "proving" that COVID is naturally occurring - because they don't want to **** off China.

And even if none of this happened - no one is going to become Creationists over it.

People are going to believe what they are going to believe regardless of "evidence".

You don't take into account the current international scene as well as basic human nature - so that is why I said that that way of thinking was naive.

Not you - but that way of thinking.