The Mystery Thread

[sayak83]

Not all scientists reject it.

And i disagree. ID does have evidence. I infer that design exists due to the evidence which is the appearence of design.

One can also infer that the sun moves around the earth because it appears that way. Etc.
Inference is made invalid when the evidence is refuted by counter-evidence...obviously.
But its worse for ID..there isn't even the appearance of design. Design is the process of manufacturing something by something else for some future intention. A calf is not manufactured by anyone (it pops out of a cow) and has no apparent purpose. It simply exists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The methodology is that everything looks designed, therefore its logical to infer actual design.

No.



It looks designed, the LOOK or APPEARANCE IS the evidence that its designed. So, the inference follows to say it is ACTUALLY designed.[/QUOTE]No.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not all scientists reject it.

I am a Christian and I do not reject the theory of evolution. By your logic that is enough to support that the theory is valid. I am glad we got that straightened out.

And i disagree. ID does have evidence. I infer that design exists due to the evidence which is the appearence of design.

If ID has evidence, then show us this evidence and provide a logical and supported explanation demonstrating that it is evidence that points to design as the best answer.

You assert design. I could assert that it is the result of cosmic watermelons and my answer would equal yours in validity.

 

[Jollybear]

Your question was meaningless, because it demonstrates that you do not understand evolution and the evidence for evolution and your demand for an order has no meaning in the context of what is known. Your question is based on the assumption that organs and structures came into existence fully formed with the function they have now. The evidence does not support this claim. You are extending and applying the debunked concept of irreducible complexity to everything in biology and even Michael Behe did not do that. IR as conceived by Michael Behe does not preclude evolution and even he has said so.

My questions may be meaningless to you, but there not to me. The more longer you resist answering them, the more you indirectly convince me more of my own position.

Further, its not me that misunderstands by my questions, its you thast misunderstands the questions.

These questions are posed to the theory you believe in. So, in other words its irrelavent whether the heart, lungs, legs, arms, ect back yonder wer different then what they are now. The question is, what PARTS came first, eregardless if said parts wer different? Why not tell me what the parts wer FIRST, then ill ask the question AGAIN. Fair enough?

I'll have to look back, but I believe I was using them as examples of living things that do not have some or any of the organs and structures you referenced and thus demonstrate that an order is your arbitrary construct. They show different functional pathways addressing the biological needs and this illustrates the unimportance of your demand for an order.

They (bugs) still have order, just different order then us.

Hearsay. Of course. One of the nine characteristics that clearly define a spirit is that it walks and the 10th is "through walls". I forgot. You cannot eliminate any of the few alternatives that I provided and have not even offered some you could probably come up with among the myriad of potential choices. Why did it have to walk?

I did elleminate the list. I did it quite well.

But, why did it have to walk? Well, for one, we would have to ask the spirit that one and it is not here. Second, my guess is that it did not have to walk, it merely chose to walk. But, is that important? They still both saw this spirit either way.

Hearsay. A small child is never impressionable and can always be relied on to provide independent testimony uncontaminated by the adults around her.

These are such weak arguments. My mom did not command my niece to believe she saw a spirit appear. My niece told me what she saw. If 2 people saw a care wreck, does the first person command the other person to believe they seen it too? Of course not, thats silly. If they both saw it then they both will say so.

I trust that you know your mom and niece, but that does not make their story evidence sufficient to demonstrate your claim. In a real test the subjects would have been evaluated. I realize that in a natural experiment, this may not be possible, but there is still tests that can be run and supporting evidence that can be provided. No one has any idea what is going on here and who knows that it all couldn't be from bad linguine?

Lol. Bad linguine huh? If thats the case, it would have made them vomit or crap. They wer not sick, that did not happen. Like i said, this was a one time thing that did not happen prior or after. The lengths hyper skeptics go too. Seriously, dont you think your arguments sound more crazy then the actual claim itself? Do you have any skeptism of your skeptism?

Again, this may be true, but no specific tests were conducted, so you really cannot even say with confidence needed to support the claim. Remember, you are the one claiming this happened, based on hearsay testimony of two people that you vouch for, but we know nothing about and in a situation that remains, at best, uncharacterized. You are not only claiming that some event happened, that you did not see yourself, but you are providing a conclusion, as definitive, that you cannot support.

No tests wer done, correct. However, ive read of some people who have taken lie detector tests and they passed. People experiencing otherworldly stuff. But, in the case of my mom and niece, even though i cant prove it to you, the way i look at this is that there very likely telling the truth.

Accepted, even though this is also hearsay.

Its great you accept it, but you prove my point about hyper skeptism. Hyper skeptism doubts even mundane NATURAL details surrounding a spactacular claim. Thats why im skeptical of hyper skeptism.

What was Jesus jabbing at when he told thomas to stop doubting and believe after he had to appear to him? He was not telling thomas to not have a healthy level of skeptism, he was telling him not to have this "hyper skeptism" that alot of naturalists have. They doubt almost everything. Another word for it is stubborness.

Admittedly, the more witnesses that independently tell the same story, the more believable it is, but you are offering a story and a conclusion that requires strong evidence. You are vouching for them and I would suspect it to be true, but to move me, I would need more than just this. Remember, anybody can come up to you and claim to have seen ghosts or aliens or Bigfoot.

Yea, anyone could, but no one does. And its not just anyone. Its my mom and niece.

That may speak to the character of your family members, but it is not corroboration that a claimed event happened and it is what you claim it to be.

You have not ruled out anything nor demonstrated that you ruled out anything.

Well, i think i have ruled out that list you gave.

I forgot, aliens that have the ability to travel 10"s 1000's or even millions of light years couldn't possibly have the technology to walk through walls and no aliens exist that cannot transmute their forms to be insubstantial and pass through solid objects. It is my fault really. I didn't study the known traits of spirits, aliens, Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster.

Sure, aliens could have that technology. Sure. If she saw an alien with this technology, thats equally incredable.

Once again, the abilities, technology and characteristics of time travelers is well known and I simply do not know them so well. When you have time, perhaps you would be so kind and please provide those so that the rest of us can rule them out of our next encounters with the unknown.

Time travelers is not proven either. But hey, if it was a time traveler she saw, thats also incredible too.

Ok, its getting late. I know you posted more, but i dont have more time. I need to go to bed. Ill respond to the rest tomorow.

 

[Jose Fly]

The methodology is that everything looks designed, therefore its logical to infer actual design.

It looks designed, the LOOK or APPEARANCE IS the evidence that its designed. So, the inference follows to say it is ACTUALLY designed.

And that doesn't constitute scientific methodology. You don't merely look around, say "things look designed", declare "therefore they are designed", and tell folks you've just done good science.

If that's how you think science works, you may want to look into it a bit more.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My questions may be meaningless to you, but there not to me. The more longer you resist answering them, the more you indirectly convince me more of my own position.

I did answer. Your question of order is meaningless and I explained why.

Further, its not me that misunderstands by my questions, its you thast misunderstands the questions.

No. I understood the question. It is not your original material and I have seen in many times before.

These questions are posed to the theory you believe in. So, in other words its irrelavent whether the heart, lungs, legs, arms, ect back yonder wer different then what they are now. The question is, what PARTS came first, eregardless if said parts wer different? Why not tell me what the parts wer FIRST, then ill ask the question AGAIN. Fair enough?

I accept the theory. I do not believe in it like I believe in my religious positions. My acceptance is based on evidence and the logic of the theory. I would change my acceptance of the theory of evolution based on new evidence and reasons of logic. What is the significance of the question of order? What does answering it in any particular way demonstrate? Will you answer these questions or will you just assert self-evidence?

Insects have a dorsal aorta instead of a heart to circulate their hemolymph (blood). This structure runs along their back and is not in the front of their body as ours is. It is very different from our heart. The blood of an insect does not function to provide oxygen to insect tissues as ours does for us.

What is the embryological origin of the organs that so concern you? Is it the same in all organisms that possess the organs you are interested in? What is the genetics behind homologous organs in various different groups of organisms? Say a comparison between invertebrates and vertebrates? Did I ask you to explain the existence of the vestigial tail that occurs in some people? What is that all about? How does it fit in your demands of order?

Do you think there should be an order if things evolved as the evidence supports they did? Why do you think that? Do you think that the theory of evolution states that these organs and structures arrived fully formed the with the shape and function they now hold?

They (bugs) still have order, just different order then us.

What is this order that bugs have? Right or wrong, having order is not an answer to the questions posed by my post. Are you familiar with the "straw man" argument. You should be. You use that tactic profusely.

I did elleminate the list. I did it quite well.

You did not and you fumbled through what you did in the form of continued empty assertions.

But, why did it have to walk? Well, for one, we would have to ask the spirit that one and it is not here. Second, my guess is that it did not have to walk, it merely chose to walk. But, is that important? They still both saw this spirit either way.

Unestablished speculation that answers nothing. You keep opening doors for which you have no answers for what is behind those doors.

These are such weak arguments. My mom did not command my niece to believe she saw a spirit appear. My niece told me what she saw. If 2 people saw a care wreck, does the first person command the other person to believe they seen it too? Of course not, thats silly. If they both saw it then they both will say so.

They are your arguments, weak as they are. The point is that you do not have any evidence to establish the validity of your mothers claim. It is all hearsay to me and remains that. I can say nothing about spirits, or whatever may have occurred if anything. Certainly, I have gotten no reason to believe in spirits, ESP or NDE's from your story.

One person can influence the eyewitness testimony of another. This is an established fact and has been amply demonstrated. This influence does not have to take the form of coercion and merely suggesting has been shown to be enough to change a story. To do so to a child is not a difficult task based on my observations.

You are very biased and that bias taints your explanations.

. Bad linguine huh? If thats the case, it would have made them vomit or crap.

They should crap anyway, bad or not. How do you know they did not vomit and just leave that part of the story out.

They wer not sick, that did not happen. Like i said, this was a one time thing that did not happen prior or after. The lengths hyper skeptics go too. Seriously, dont you think your arguments sound more crazy then the actual claim itself? Do you have any skeptism of your skeptism?[/QUOTE]I still do not know if the story means anything. But yes, continue to characterize me in some negative way. I am sure that it germane to the legitimacy of your story.

You really do not understand how arguments work do you. You make an assertion and support it with evidence. When asked for additional evidence you supply it. If you cannot, you must admit so and recognize the significance of that evidence. From a logical side, knowing that there is no evidence for the spirit world and only that you really, really, really want to believe it only, then you should admit that fact and recognize the failure of your attempt to demonstrate it.

Food poisoning does not have to result in the symptoms of vomiting or diarrhea. Obviously, you are not familiar with this.

No tests wer done, correct. However, ive read of some people who have taken lie detector tests and they passed. People experiencing otherworldly stuff. But, in the case of my mom and niece, even though i cant prove it to you, the way i look at this is that there very likely telling the truth.

Lots of liars pass those tests too. You can pass because you believe something that is not real is true. That does not make it true. You have established that no amount of evidence will convince you. I accept that.

Its great you accept it, but you prove my point about hyper skeptism. Hyper skeptism doubts even mundane NATURAL details surrounding a spactacular claim. Thats why im skeptical of hyper skeptism.

A made up answer when you have nothing to say. It is attack the messenger and not address the message.[/QUOTE]No I do not. You have offered no verifiable evidence of anything. My skepticism is normal, logical and reasonable.

What was Jesus jabbing at when he told thomas to stop doubting and believe after he had to appear to him? He was not telling thomas to not have a healthy level of skeptism, he was telling him not to have this "hyper skeptism" that alot of naturalists have. They doubt almost everything. Another word for it is stubborness.

What does this have to do with ID and science? You exhibit a large number of logical fallacies as answers. I am not questioning Jesus or your belief in Jesus. My own belief is also not on the table. What I am questioning is your claims based on your belief, especially in relation to your claims about certain versions of belief being science.

In the case, Jesus was the evidence for Thomas. You offer no such evidence. You keep showing me that you do not know what you are talking about even when referencing backhanded personal attacks that you invented.

Yea, anyone could, but no one does. And its not just anyone. Its my mom and niece.

That explains why you believe, but I have a higher, but not unreasonable standard and so should anyone else that has an interest in the wild claims of others.

Well, i think i have ruled out that list you gave.

Not even close. You just made more assertions.

Sure, aliens could have that technology. Sure. If she saw an alien with this technology, thats equally incredable.

It would be incredible and you have not ruled that possibility out.

Time travelers is not proven either.

How ironic. Time travelers are not proven, but unproven spirits are. Do you not see the paradox you have established? No. I see you do not.

But hey, if it was a time traveler she saw, thats also incredible too.

Yes. And as valid an answer as yours. Still it is not ruled out by you. Calling it incredible is not ruling it out.

My assertion still stands. I cannot demonstrate that a spirit was not seen, but you cannot demonstrate that anything was seen or if it was, that it was a spirit. You have not demonstrated the nature of a spirit or its existence for you to know that it was one.

, its getting late. I know you posted more, but i dont have more time. I need to go to bed. Ill respond to the rest tomorow.

Have a good evening.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My questions may be meaningless to you, but there not to me. The more longer you resist answering them, the more you indirectly convince me more of my own position.

Further, its not me that misunderstands by my questions, its you thast misunderstands the questions.

These questions are posed to the theory you believe in. So, in other words its irrelavent whether the heart, lungs, legs, arms, ect back yonder wer different then what they are now. The question is, what PARTS came first, eregardless if said parts wer different? Why not tell me what the parts wer FIRST, then ill ask the question AGAIN. Fair enough?



They (bugs) still have order, just different order then us.



I did elleminate the list. I did it quite well.

But, why did it have to walk? Well, for one, we would have to ask the spirit that one and it is not here. Second, my guess is that it did not have to walk, it merely chose to walk. But, is that important? They still both saw this spirit either way.



These are such weak arguments. My mom did not command my niece to believe she saw a spirit appear. My niece told me what she saw. If 2 people saw a care wreck, does the first person command the other person to believe they seen it too? Of course not, thats silly. If they both saw it then they both will say so.



Lol. Bad linguine huh? If thats the case, it would have made them vomit or crap. They wer not sick, that did not happen. Like i said, this was a one time thing that did not happen prior or after. The lengths hyper skeptics go too. Seriously, dont you think your arguments sound more crazy then the actual claim itself? Do you have any skeptism of your skeptism?



No tests wer done, correct. However, ive read of some people who have taken lie detector tests and they passed. People experiencing otherworldly stuff. But, in the case of my mom and niece, even though i cant prove it to you, the way i look at this is that there very likely telling the truth.



Its great you accept it, but you prove my point about hyper skeptism. Hyper skeptism doubts even mundane NATURAL details surrounding a spactacular claim. Thats why im skeptical of hyper skeptism.

What was Jesus jabbing at when he told thomas to stop doubting and believe after he had to appear to him? He was not telling thomas to not have a healthy level of skeptism, he was telling him not to have this "hyper skeptism" that alot of naturalists have. They doubt almost everything. Another word for it is stubborness.



Yea, anyone could, but no one does. And its not just anyone. Its my mom and niece.



Well, i think i have ruled out that list you gave.



Sure, aliens could have that technology. Sure. If she saw an alien with this technology, thats equally incredable.



Time travelers is not proven either. But hey, if it was a time traveler she saw, thats also incredible too.

Ok, its getting late. I know you posted more, but i dont have more time. I need to go to bed. Ill respond to the rest tomorow.

According to the latest numbers I have available to me, right now, more people believe in and follow the Quran than those that follow the Bible. Do you accept the Quran?

According to the logic you have been working to establish, believing something is real means it is real. At least to the believer. Now I agree with you about the "to the believer" part. To a Muslim, their beliefs are real to them as near as I can determine, but they are not to you. Your beliefs would not be real to them. This is the nature of belief. There is no evidence that either of you could provide that would substantiate your beliefs, one over the other. Life is not that simple. Both retain components that have no physical manifestation and cannot be produced on demand to demonstrate validity. Intelligent design is the same way.

Compared to the theory of evolution which has over 150 years worth of concordant evidence, there is not even one piece of evidence arising from intelligent design to challenge the theory. There is only belief and assertion of that belief.

The belief I accept and have no problem living with. It is the assertion of that belief and as if it is some sort of established fact where the problem arises for me and for many more other people than there are that believe it. This is true as well, to varying extents, for ESP, NDE's, spirits, Bigfoot, Nessie and many other unsupported phenomena. In some instances, there is something unexplained going on, but to say that your explanation is the only and right explanation is arrogance, poor exploration and not very well considered.

I do not doubt that you believe. It has not been my interest or effort to prevent you from believing what you will. Your belief is accepted. But asserting that belief is not evidence that what you believe is demonstrated and established. You are so asserting your belief, without anything to substantiate it, into the world and claiming that not believing it makes me some sort of flawed person. Anyone not believing it is some sort of flawed person. Another assertion you have not established. You mix a lot of personal bias and logical fallacies into your assertions and seem to be totally unaware of this. At best, all you seem to be able to do to remain in the argument is continue those efforts along with repeating your assertions.

You have not provided any evidence that would establish your assertions and be something substantial that another could evaluate and review and reasonably come to the same conclusions as you do. You repeat the illogical and demand we accept it without question, largely based on your personal choice in religious affiliation. There is no authority that lists your personal choices or those of any other individual as the main criteria for accepting something as real or as science.

 

[gnostic]

No, i understand it as science.

Let me ask you, do you see order and what LOOKS like design in the world? Yes or no?

No, jollybear, you don’t understand science or how the science works methodologically (referring to scientific method, experiments, and of evidence gathering and analysing.

Simply put it, you don’t understand science, PERIOD!

You are going by “what looks like design” alone. That’s not science.

Ancient philosophers, religious believers, mystics, poets, storytellers, authors, farmers, shepherds, fishermen, etc, who were without education in science, have be using what something “looks like” for millennia.

Saying something “looks like” design, doesn’t make it science, not unless you are able to explain mechanisms, predict how it work, and then test it (the evidences come from testings).

Testing will -

1. either verify it (it being the “hypothesis” or “scientific theory”),
2. or refute it.

The “testing stage of scientific method, can be either through finding evidences (finding, mean go out in the fields, which scientists will have less control over any variable) or doing lab experiments (more control over the variables and over the environment)...or ideally both.

Testing does observation, but not your silly unscientific “looks like” observation. Observation means:

1. able to observe or detect it (eg you need a device to detect electromagnetic wavelength, like infrared, microwave, x-ray, etc);
2. being able to measure and record findings, eg using multimeter or oscilloscope to measure electric current, voltage, etc in electrical or electronic components;
3. being able to quantify and record the results;
4. and being able to test it, eg examining how it work in parts or as a whole.

Intelligent Design provide none of these tests.

Like Michael Behe and Stephen Meyers, you have only make assumptions/assertions of design and of the Designer, based on implied “what it looks like”.

You have an excuse, since you are not qualified scientist...well at, I don’t think you are a scientist. But Behe and Meyer are scientists (biochemist and geophysicist, respectively), but that they provide no testable evidences for Intelligent Design, like you using unfalsifiable assumptions, it demonstrated their incompetent and lack of integrity as scientists.

They should know better. Instead they allow their religious beliefs (belief in creationism) cloud their judgement.

ID isn’t science, because there have been no methodology that will TEST a prediction made in hypothesis for ID.

ID isn’t falsifiable, which mean it is untestable, so ID already failed to achieve even the status of being falsifiable hypothesis, HENCE Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience, then debunked itself.

Every replies you have made in this thread, are just a series of implied assumptions and assertions, nothing more.

Assumptions and assertions are merely making claims, they are not evidences of themselves, until you can test each one (of your implied assumptions)...WHICH YOU HAVEN’T.

 

[Jollybear]

From my position, all that can be said is an individual posting on an internet forum claims that some people in his family told him they saw a ghost. The poster does not claim to have been a witness. This is third party hearsay. The poster gave a description that was related to him. It is a familiar description from legend, folklore, books and movies. The poster believes the story. All that can be said is that it is a strange story. Any conclusions drawn from it are meaningless, since there as so many possible alternative explanations, the characteristics of many of the unsupported alternatives are unknown and so many contributing factors have not been eliminated.

Whatever they saw, in any case, i believe they truely saw it.

Another Christianity test? I believe. That belief does not make it real other than to me. I cannot show that it is real or show another it is real. They would have to believe too and have equal ability to ignore it for lack of evidence.

Unsubstantiated claims do not support claims.

I think NDEs have been substanciated. Just not to the level of your satisfaction.

For you perhaps, but we are talking about what you claim and what you support. You claim it. Others claim it. No one can support it. Even you agree. Design is not self evidence. That something appears to have a design is not a signature of a designer. Natural processes have been demonstrated to result in apparent design. Humans have been demonstrated to design. Nothing else has. The fact is that ID is not science. It is religion. That is the argument. That design can be shown and by that, so to a designer. Even you agree with that here.

Misunderstanding. No, ID is not religion. Not to me its not. Its science because it deals with the physical world. It sees what looks like design, then infers it.

How do you test your hypothesis? You would have to establish the existence of spirit. The properties of spirits. The association between ESP and these spiritual causes. You are not seeming to be able to separate what you believe with what can be demonstrated.

Your not answering my question. Your asking me questions. I know no other alternative explanation for the ESP experiences other then spirit. Im asking you for an alternative explanation?

The problem here is that you have provided no evidence or links to evidence or any corroboration of your beliefs at all that you claim are self-evident and real. You do not seem to understand the difference between beliefs, claims, evidence and the support of those claims using logic and evidence.

I do understand the difference between evidence, logic and inference. I gave you all of it. Using the eyes, ears, nose, mouth, ect, as evidence, all orderely patterns in everyone. So, logically, i infer a designer.

It is a mystery that you read a lot into and I can dismiss as coincidence just as easily and you cannot show that I would be wrong for doing so.

Ok, so coincidence would be YOUR BELIEF.

What you do is take a phenomenon and without benefit of review or examination and take it to the conclusion you want. You do not posit possible alternatives or test for them. You eliminate them with a wave of the hand. You base your conclusions on characteristics not in evidence and established by prior work other than to claim what others have claimed without substantiation.

Others have got ID peer reviewed, why do i need to do it? Im not hand waving anything. Your hand waving what im saying.

So, If I tell you I am Napoleon, that means that I am. Belief should not be blind and stupid either. I know a lot of things about biology and science and I still believe in God. Probably more now that I know. To me, it would be lying to myself and others to deny this knowledge. I would be denying the mental gifts and abilities that I believe God gave me. Are you suggesting that I bear false witness just to please someone that has less understanding?

Your not paying attention to what im saying. If you say there is no evidence for God, yet you still believe in God, is that then not blind faith?

Also when you say you know alot about biology, yet still believe in God, and more so because you know biology; are you then saying biology is evidence for God then?

I agree that you hold all of these. I do not know "not believing" something to be a belief. It is the "not stamp collecting hobby" paradox.

Theres no such thing as a vacume to belief. You must be CONSISTENT.

If someone says they dont believe in any God, then by default they MUST BELIEVE the alternatives which is chance-nothing-time created everything. That is just as much a BELIEF as God created it all. In fact, id posit that it takes MORE faith to believe that.

Ok.....thats it for now. Ill respond to more later.

 

[Jollybear]

No. I did not. And that still does not relieve you from supporting your assertions.

How did you not fill a gap with SOME chance?

 

[Jollybear]

Conjecture is not really interpretation. Interpretation requires something more substantial than biased belief.

Thats just a fancy dismissal of reality. ID is a interpretation.

Also a belief that rejects a designer is also biased. See, that gets us no where.

What would it matter to find out that creatures thought to be extinct were still alive now or at least a few thousand years ago? It would not change the facts of evolution or refute the theory. Creatures thought to be long extinct have been discovered.

Tell me somethin, what would refute evolution for you? What would falsify it?

I should have asked that from the very beginning. Live and learn.

The descriptions of anything in the Bible have to be stretched beyond reason to fit the idea of a dinosaur and fit with other animals that were actually alive at the time.

How so? This discussion would be more meaningfull going into examples.

Stories of dragons could be based on some dinosaur, but I have never seen any evidence that supports it. That assertion still falls into the realm of unverified speculation.

Define evidence?

Everything that exists could be an illusion. Neither of us can demonstrate that it is not, even though we operate as if it is not.

Yea, sure, everything could be an illusion. Unlikely, but ya, possibly. But, you admit it looks like it exists, yea?

When my past friend told me this view, i said "ok, since nothing exists, then your wallet dont exist, can i have the money in your wallet?" Gauss what he said? Yep, you guessed it, he ACTED like his wallet existed because he did not give me it. Actions tell what people really believe.

You are not proposing anything in science by supporting ID. You are making assertions and claiming that supporting them is easy, yet you do not support them. You just repeat them.

If design was established, what is the evidence that God is the designer?

For ID, WHO the designer is, is irrelavent. Its still a important question, but its a seperate issue.

Are you familiar with circular arguments and unverified assumptions?

Yes.

They were wrong and obviously did not know anything about science or what a scientific theory is.

How do you know that the peer reviewed ID journal was wrong? Did you read it? I havent read it myself. Mayby we should both read it, then come back and debate it?

ID is not a scientific theory. There is no way to test the existence of a designer and all claims of ID so far have been eliminated. Only in the biased minds of people that wrongly fear their belief is under attack keep it alive as a belief.

Oh boy.....its not the designer that is tested, its the world of design that is tested. There is no fear of attack. I dont fear atheism.

ID is religion hiding in scientific rags. It is not a valid scientific theory. It is a belief system. There are no observations from the world around us that support it.

All your doing is repeating yourself. I dont agree.

So, saying that the universe is made up of a matrix of cotton candy is real? What if I believe it real hard?

Just because you make up a rediculious claim, then compare it to ID does not refute ID. Nore does it remotely make ID look bad either. No one believes in the cotten candy view, while many believe in ID. The fact you bring up this cotten candy thing tells me a lack of seriousness about the subject.

The reality of the world or the universe is not in question here and never has been since I started responding to your posts. If the evidence is there, show it to me. Show the rest of the world.

Its shown. Its everywhere.

There is no point to answer meaningless questions, since I am not questioning that you believe. I accept that you believe and what you have claimed you believe. I am challenging your assertions that step outside your belief. Assertions that you have failed to support and cannot support.

If you think answering my questions will mean you will be questioning my belief, then by all means I WANT YOU TO QUESTION my belief. In other words, yes, answer my questions.

Is this a typo? Did you mean ID. Because IT is science, but that is IT as in Information Technology. ID as in Intelligent Design is not science and no matter what you believe, you cannot make it science. There is no obvious work of a designer in the world that can be pointed in support of the existence of that designer. Even you call it apparent design. That is what it is, until something else can be demonstrated to show that it is not just apparent and since we are discussing ID, which is in a framework of belief, that is not going to be demonstrated.

The alternative to ID is a belief in "nothing, chance, time" created it all.

 

[Jose Fly]

ts not the designer that is tested, its the world of design that is tested.

If you'll recall, when asked to explain the methodology behind ID creationism, you described it as looking around, thinking that everything looks "designed", and simply declaring "therefore it is designed".

Yet here you're saying "the world of design is tested".

Do you see the disconnect?

 

[Jollybear]

It is an assertion.

The key is "looks" designed, not is designed.

If it LOOKS deaigned, why cant it BE designed?

 

[Jollybear]

One can also infer that the sun moves around the earth because it appears that way. Etc.
Inference is made invalid when the evidence is refuted by counter-evidence...obviously.

Apples to oranges comparison. Plus, the perception of the sun going round the earth is shown by NASA to be the opposite.

But its worse for ID..there isn't even the appearance of design. Design is the process of manufacturing something by something else for some future intention. A calf is not manufactured by anyone (it pops out of a cow) and has no apparent purpose. It simply exists.

Theres no appearence of design? Ummm, ok, if you think so. I dont agree at all.

Calves have the appearence of design. Each design has purposes. Calves would be no different in that regard.

 

[Jollybear]

If you'll recall, when asked to explain the methodology behind ID creationism, you described it as looking around, thinking that everything looks "designed", and simply declaring "therefore it is designed".

Yet here you're saying "the world of design is tested".

Do you see the disconnect?

I hear your point, but the "test" is done. Anytime anyone, scientist or other learns to figure out the functions of something in the natural world, be it a bug, a animal or some plant, he is testing these designs. The patterns and designs are found out when he learns the functions and purposes of all the parts.

 

[Jose Fly]

I hear your point, but the "test" is done. Anytime anyone, scientist or other learns to figure out the functions of something in the natural world, be it a bug, a animal or some plant, he is testing these designs. The patterns and designs are found out when he learns the functions and purposes of all the parts.

So let me see if I have this correct. According to what you posted, ID creationism consists of....

Look around and think that everything looks designed.

Declare "therefore it is all designed".

Test the design by studying the functions and patterns of things.​

I gotta ask....do you truly think that's valid scientific methodology?

 

[Jollybear]

So let me see if I have this correct. According to what you posted, ID creationism consists of....

Look around and think that everything looks designed.​

Correct, thats the hypotheses.

Declare "therefore it is all designed".

Correct, after the test, declar its designed. Enough tests been done, so, yea, declare it designed.

Test the design by studying the functions and patterns of things.

Correct.​

I gotta ask....do you truly think that's valid scientific methodology?

Yes, i do. To add, after they learn the functions of things, learn to use it by designing and copying nature (engineering).

All of this together IS doing science.

 

[Jose Fly]

Correct, thats the hypotheses.



Correct, after the test, declar its designed. Enough tests been done, so, yea, declare it designed.



Correct.​

Yes, i do. To add, after they learn the functions of things, learn to use it by designing and copying nature (engineering).

All of this together IS doing science.

Then I strongly suggest you educate yourself on scientific methodology.

 

[Jollybear]

Then I strongly suggest you educate yourself on scientific methodology.

I have. But, why dont you educate me by telling me why you dont agree with what i said?

 

[Jose Fly]

I have.

Given what you outlined and declared to be "doing science", I suggest you look again.

But, why dont you educate me by telling me why you dont agree with what i said?

It's simple....science is not looking at things, concluding that since they look like X they must therefore be X, and then after studying those things declaring that you've studied X.

If you still think that's how science operates, then you need to provide an example of a field of science operating that way (and by "provide an example" I mean a direct example, not some third party bystander's account).