Intelligent Design???

[shmogie]

The opposite of RANDOM is not PLANNED. It is ORDERED, or STRUCTURED.

OK. The process is ordered and structured once it begins purely by chance, fair to say of abiogenesis ? Of course, there are giant scientific hurdles to that conclusion.

 

[Polymath257]

OK. The process is ordered and structured once it begins purely by chance, fair to say of abiogenesis ? Of course, there are giant scientific hurdles to that conclusion.

No, it does NOT begin purely by chance. It begins because the laws of physics and chemistry dictate how the atoms and molecules interact to form the structures that become life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am not a scientist, my expertise is in another field. Since the thread is on intelligent design, there is one area related to the thread that I have studied over the years, abiogenesis.

Did it happen ? There is a large body of evidence that leads to the conclusion it did not. To be fair, there is some evidence, extremely focused, that leads to the conclusion that there are possibilities for it.

I know of no body of evidence, especially a large body of it, that precludes the possibility of abiogenesis from natural processes. The fact is, there is a continually growing body of evidence that supports the possibility to the point that hypotheses have been developed.

As extremely hesitant as many atheist evolutionists are to discuss it, evolution could never have begun without that elusive first functioning, reproducing organism.

This is confusing. I do not know of anyone that is hesitant to discuss that evolution requires living things in order for the process to take place. This is common knowledge among scientists. It does not make sense to consider evolution otherwise. It is a theory explaining aspects of living things.

We do not know how life originated on Earth. That ignorance does not skew the question to a specific answer. We do know that life had to exist and have heritability for evolution to take place, but that would be true if some form of abiogenesis was the source or if the source were divine creation.

I propose that without the significant evidence, conclusive evidence for the first organism as a result of the combination of likely chemicals in a likely environment whose likely characteristics are known, it could not have occurred.

So you are saying that if we did not see Wilbur and Orville actually build and fly the first plane, humans do not fly. Since there is no living memory of the Civil War, then it must not have occurred either. Your proposal has no meaning other than to say that the origin of life has not been determined. Your conclusion does not follow your premises.

Further, the atheists who believe it happened, had to have happened, are exercising great faith, and nothing more in their belief.[/QUOTE]This may be true. I cannot say. I am not an atheist and I do not know what all atheist base their understanding of the origin of life on.

Why then is their faith that life on earth was the result of random combinations of chemicals more acceptable than my faith that life is the result of a specific creation by a capable creator ?

I cannot speak for others, but I have no reason to dismiss the possibility of abiogenesis. From the evidence of geology and paleontology, we can date the strata of the Earth and find fossils in those strata. Based on the observations of those disciplines, there is a point that evidence for living things begins. Prior to that point, there is no evidence for life. In other words, there was no life and then there was life. The question is how that life came to be. The answer right now is that we do not know.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So then, an unobserved, unreplicated, proposed phenomenon, based upon an unknown environment and unknown operational features must de facto be declared non existent. No evidence is evidence of non existence, correct ?

There is no reliable evidence that Bigfoot exists. All that can be said is that the existing evidence related to the claims of Bigfoot is weak and undetermined and there is nothing supporting the conclusions of popular culture regarding the existence of Bigfoot.

 

[Ellen Brown]

You say that evolution sounds “like a good explanation”, but you really don’t mean that all.

Clearly you have little understanding as to the basic foundation of science, as my next quote of yours will demonstrate. But let’s stick with this current quote above.

So you think evolution is “continually altering understanding of it” as if it is a bad or negative thing?

As you know Charles Darwin published his On Origin of Species in 1859, followed up by more publications, in regarding to evolution through Natural Selection.

Darwin wasn’t the only one who did his research on Natural Selection, because roughly the same time, another naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace was working on similar biological concept.

Likewise, through the decades that followed Charles Darwin’s death, biologists have greatly improved his original theory, which is Evolution through Natural Selection, that eventually led to discoveries of other evolutionary mechanisms, like Mutation, Genetic Drift, Gene Flow and Genetic Hitchhiking.

These newer mechanisms didn’t make Natural Selection obsolete, but only reinforced the validity of Darwin’s original framework of evolution.

Do you think biologists should not advance and refine the theory over time?

You have heard of progress, Ellen, haven’t you?

Technology and engineering need to change over time,

If science doesn’t allow for change, astronomers today would be star-gazing without the telescopes. And if there were no technological advances with the telescopes, we would still be using same primitive invention that Galileo invented.

Isaac Newton wrote the theory on gravity, which have many applications, but Albert Einstein greatly improved knowledge on gravity with General Relativity, which gave astronomers greater understanding of distant stars and distant galaxies.

Altering the theory based on new evidences, modifying and improving our knowledge on evolution are just as important as improving technology on optical telescopes for astronomy.



Here is where you don’t understand the concept of what is “evidence”, because your belief in what “evidence” isn’t the same thing as used in science.

You seem to think “evidence” is related to your personal belief or personal conviction, especially when you say:

“I think that evidence of an intelligent Creator is conclusive, and not open to debate.”
​

That’s not how scientific evidence work.

Any “hypothesis” or “theory” - I am using these terms as in the science context - have to open to debate, all theories and hypotheses are open for testing, meaning it must be falsifiable.

The falsifiable statement or falsifiable prediction that are used in hypothesis or theory are subjected for testing, tests that can either refute or verify statements and predictions.

If you cannot test the statements and predictions, then they are not falsifiable.

Creationists who don’t have education in fundamental of scientific practice (eg the whole process of Scientific Method, which include formulation of a falsifiable hypothesis, testing the hypothesis through observations (eg experiments); all of this are then subject to peer review), is that all theories and hypotheses are subjected for testing and reviews.

The theory of evolution, theory of gravity, particle theory, germ theory, etc are always open to debates, always open to review and testing.

Evidence is anything that scientists can -

1. observe (not just seeing with eyes, but also hear or feel it) or detect it (eg using device like a multimeter to detect electricity)
2. and what is being observed or detected, you can measure it, like my electricity, you can measure the electric voltage, power or current,
3. or test the observation individually or against each other, like comparing the test results of each experiment,
4. or quantify the evidences, like finding empirical independent evidences or performing the experiments x-number of times.

The last two - point 3 & 4 - are what we called repeatable and verifiable. In fact, all 4 points are evidences used either to refute or to verify. Science is all about testing the knowledge and verification, to refute the hypothesis.

The more evidences you have or the the experiments you have performed, you would quantify to determine if they “probable” or if they are “improbable”, so basically you are using statistics and probability here.

To give you example, let say a scientist perform 100 experiments, and 95 of these support his or her hypothesis (a hypothesis would include explanation and some predictions), then that mean the hypothesis is highly probable. That scientist has verified his hypothesis is true. The 5 failed test results could be device measuring might have malfunctioned and therefore give false readings.

But if most or all experiments have failed then the hypothesis is highly improbable, therefore it has been refuted and debunked.

Personally, I would throw away the refuted hypothesis in trash because I wouldn’t presented a failed hypothesis for peer review.

The peer review served a couple of vital purposes, they go over your hypothesis and test results or data (evidences) to see if there are errors in the hypothesis or experiments, if there are biases in the results or if there are cheats.

The problem with God and creation is that you cannot “observe” or detect God, you cannot “measure” God, you cannot “quantify” God and you cannot “test” God.

All of the above mean the concept of God is “unfalsifiable”.

What you have, Ellen, isn’t “evidence”. What you have is your personal faith or personal conviction in your personal belief.

Faith and conviction are not evidences, and they are certainly not conclusive.

I don't care what you think at all, and if you continue your snotty disrespect, I'll just block you. Now, just bugger off like a good chap.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

¨ A false assertion¨ really ? I think I will prove in further posts, your assertion to be false.

You asserted that there is a large body of evidence supporting the rejection of abiogenesis. I know of no body of evidence such as that. Calling it a false assertion is supported.

Uh, The majority of atheists are evolutionists, but I was careful to make the distinction of atheist evolutionists, obviously inferring there were non atheist evolutionsts, which there are

I think you meant that your distinction "implied" there were non atheists that accept the evidence and theory of evolution. There are. This always smacks of an attempt to imply that acceptance of the theory of evolution is some kind of acceptance of an atheist world view. It is acceptance of a scientific theory based on its explanatory value. The background of the person accepting the theory is not a requisite for accepting it.

Of course what I propose is based on science, no other basis would be valid.

It appears your proposal is based on belief only. That and a healthy ignorance of science.

did not begin with a RANDOM combination of chemicals ? So then these chemicals came together in combination in a PLANNED manner ?

There is no evidence that evolution is planned. Whether it is biological evolution or any previous chemical evolution. All that can be identified as the guiding factors are the laws of chemistry and physics.

Would you prefer the terms chance or accidental ? Those work for me.

The two are often used interchangeably, but since the topic of discussion includes science, the use of chance would be preferable.

You accuse me of religious bias, fine, you may accuse, but in a court of law bias must be proven. I could just as easily accuse you of scientific bias. For something in reality to exist, like bias, it must be proven to exist, prove it.

I submit many of the statements you made in your posts as evidence that you are biased to a religious explanation. I submit that you also show a fair ignorance of science, but I think you have been honest about that and show some interest in gaining some understanding. Based on your questions about evidence anyway.

You as a geologist are no more qualified than me to address a biological issue, so please don´t play the ¨only scientists can know¨ card on me. It is a canard, scientists publish, anyone who exercises the diligence of reading can learn scientific things.

Having learned that he is a geologist, I would consider him a reliable authority on geology certainly, but also science in general and, given the brief background he provided, would expect him to have a better than average understanding of the theory of evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't care what you think at all, and if you continue your snotty disrespect, I'll just block you. Now, just bugger off like a good chap.

I have questions, but I cannot think of a way to ask them that would not agitate you. Ordinarily, I might ask anyway, but I will just scratch my head and live with the wondering.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, the working hypothesis was that light was a vibration in the ether. Because of that, it was expected by *everyone* that the Michelson-Morley apparatus would reveal the motion of the Earth through said ether. The null finding was a significant blow to our understanding of light. This absence of evidence for the ether *was* very definitely evidence of absence.

it would be similar to finding no elephant in a room where one was expected.

I wonder if it is a matter of how it is stated. The absence of the elephant was not consistent with the hypothesis that an elephant would be in the room. ???

 

[leroy]

You need to try harder to understand. I seriously doubt if you can show anyone to be wrong on this subject.

How can I show that you are wrong, if I don't even know what your view is?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How can I show that you are wrong, if I don't even know what your view is?

Are you trying to determine the view of an avowed scientist that clearly is not in favor of theistic explanations for the natural world like intelligent design? What other evidence do you need to feel comfortable concluding you have a general grasp of his position?

 

[Bear Wild]

I am not speaking of gods and other worlds. If a DA charges that defendant A committed a robbery, but cannot produce evidence that he did, then the absence of evidence is evidence that defendant A did not commit a robbery.

If scientist A proposes a theory, that is initiated by an unproven hypothesis;

Does the absence of evidence for the beginning critical factor void the entire theory ?

Does impeaching counter evidence, i.e. evidence that leads to the conclusion that the hypothesis is wrong, have significant weight in voiding the entire theory ?

No it does not void an entire theory. A negative answer gives us information just as a positive answer but it does not negate a theory. It may open questions and stimulate further research and may stimulate others to reconsider a theory. Next new studies to look at the problem from a different view or even repeat the test with new variables would come next. To build a theory or to completely change a theory you still need positive evidence. So negative results can be just as important as positive results in questioning a theory or trying to support a theory. But for any acceptable theory to proceed there needs to be positive evidence eventually.

 

[shunyadragon]

OK. The process is ordered and structured once it begins purely by chance,

In nature no process begins purely by chance. All processes begin and end based on the laws of nature.

. . . fair to say of abiogenesis ? Of course, there are giant scientific hurdles to that conclusion.

. . . 'fair to say' is not the criteria for abiogenesis in science.

 

[gnostic]

I don't care what you think at all, and if you continue your snotty disrespect, I'll just block you. Now, just bugger off like a good chap.

???

Sorry, but I didn’t show you any disrespect.

I am trying to explain to you where you don’t seem to understand understand how science works.

 

[gnostic]

I have questions, but I cannot think of a way to ask them that would not agitate you. Ordinarily, I might ask anyway, but I will just scratch my head and live with the wondering.

I am just perplexed as to why she think I had been disrespectful to her.

 

[Ellen Brown]

???

Sorry, but I didn’t show you any disrespect.

I am trying to explain to you where you don’t seem to understand understand how science works.

Your opinion about how science works is not the only one. I just don't agree with some of the prevailing ideas right now. Evolution can not be proven completely but I think parts of it are quite reasonable. I don't agree with all the religious ideas either but I am willing to let the things I do not concur with exist around me because their influence may later change my mind.

It is not important to me that both Scientists and Religious folk would agree with me. As a veteran of Military Service I defend the right of each person to their own opinion.

Peace to you.

 

[gnostic]

There is no reliable evidence that Bigfoot exists. All that can be said is that the existing evidence related to the claims of Bigfoot is weak and undetermined and there is nothing supporting the conclusions of popular culture regarding the existence of Bigfoot.

The only real life big-foot I know of, is former australian olympic champion, Ian Thorpe.

He wears size 17, if I remember correctly!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am just perplexed as to why she think I had been disrespectful to her.

I do not understand why someone would publicly state their opinion in a place where responses are not only given, but expected and then be upset when a response arrives. Voicing my surprise and confusion over that is not disrespect either.

Communication is bi-directional. It may not be what you said, but how it was received. It could be a lot of things.

Personally, I concern myself with how my responses read and for the most part, do not wish them to be received poorly when I do not intend them to be so.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The only real life big-foot I know of, is former australian olympic champion, Ian Thorpe.

He wears size 17, if I remember correctly!

That is some big feet.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK. The process is ordered and structured once it begins purely by chance, fair to say of abiogenesis ? Of course, there are giant scientific hurdles to that conclusion.

What hurdles are those?

 

[gnostic]

Your opinion about how science works is not the only one. I just don't agree with some of the prevailing ideas right now. Evolution can not be proven completely but I think parts of it are quite reasonable. I don't agree with all the religious ideas either but I am willing to let the things I do not concur with exist around me because their influence may later change my mind.

It is not important to me that both Scientists and Religious folk would agree with me. As a veteran of Military Service I defend the right of each person to their own opinion.

Peace to you.

It is not a matter of opinions, Ellen.

It is the way science works.

The falsification, the formulation of hypothesis, scientific method, the scientific evidence, the peer review, all the process that make science “science”, is that any theory and any hypothesis must follow these minimum requirements.

Creationism don’t follow such process. Intelligent Design don’t follow this process or requirements.

I was merely explaining those process and requirements that are already in place.

I certainly didn’t invent falsifiability or scientific method or peer review, but I am trying to offer you some help.

What you are doing is merely opinions.

Opinions are personal views, which would include personal belief.

I would defend your freedom to express your opinions, but science isn’t about opinions.

Science is a method of acquiring knowledge, by testing the explanations, be they through evidences or by lab experiments.

Any scientist who write his or her paper on a specific phenomena, but ultimately decide if his or her hypothesis is true and correct, are empirical evidences and the peer review, not because of his or her desire or want. A scientist must be able to accept his or her hypothesis failed under rigorous and repeated testings.

This is a thread about Intelligent Design, not about Evolution, and ID has failed repeatedly each and every requirements.

Michael Behe, for instance, is a qualified biochemist, but his paper on Irreducible Complexity is a falsifiable hypothesis, and none of his explanations have been testable, and it has never undergone peer review.

And it is the same with his book, Darwin’s Black Box, as well as his contribution to updated edition Of Panda and People. They weren’t peer review.

The problem with Behe is that he won’t accept his conjectures on Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design have failed. That he won’t give it up, just showed his lack of integrity.

Whether you call your Creator, “God” or “Designer”, neither of them are falsifiable, because you cannot observe or detect God, you cannot measure or quantify God, and you cannot test God.

And scientific evidences require it be either observable or detectable, measurable, quantifiable, testable or verifiable...it can be combination of these, or ideally all of them.