1221 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

What do you mean by "definitely"?  Give me an example?

[addx]

What do you mean by "definitely"?  Give me an example?

http://matthew2262.f...07/embryos2.jpg

The development of the human embryo proves beyond reasonable doubt that we evolved from fish and are created by evolution (or years of increasing selection among random mutations).


Show us an example of what body part, animal or whatever was created by ID and what the mechanism of creation was. You need to provide at least as good evidence towards your mechanism as evolution did with embryo development.

[shadowhawk]

The Old Recapitulation Theory of Haeckel.  Without a doubt no less.  Its been discredited but I love how you are such a in your face believer.  Not interested in your hostility. 

[Duchykins]

Haeckel took real features and drew them in ways that made them more noticable. This is professionally unethical by scientific standards, though not a complete fabrication of evidence as it was an overrepresentation of features actually present.

Creationists like to pretend those features aren't there at all, which is a flat out LIE worse than Haeckel's overrepresentations. Creationists have no professional standards.

Edited by Duchykins, 23 May 2014 - 06:33 AM.

[addx]

The Old Recapitulation Theory of Haeckel.  Without a doubt no less.  Its been discredited but I love how you are such a in your face believer.  Not interested in your hostility. 

"Embryos do reflect the course of evolution, but that course is far more intricate and quirky than Haeckel claimed. Different parts of the same embryo can even evolve in different directions. As a result, the Biogenetic Law was abandoned, and its fall freed scientists to appreciate the full range of embryonic changes that evolution can producean appreciation that has yielded spectacular results in recent years as scientists have discovered some of the specific genes that control development"

The developmental process of amphibians from birth to maturity also emphasises the obviousness of evolution

[shadowhawk]

Haeckel took real features and drew them in ways that made them more noticable. This is professionally unethical by scientific standards, though not a complete fabrication of evidence as it was an overrepresentation of features actually present.

Creationists like to pretend those features aren't there at all, which is a flat out LIE worse than Haeckel's overrepresentations. Creationists have no professional standards.

 

At least we agree on Haeckel s drawings which were presented as evolutionary evidence in most text books of biology.  It seems from your remarks, “not a complete fabrication of evidence as it was an overrepresentation of features actually present.”  Then you also seem to imply that Creationists ignore the embro.  Insane.  Bu the way, this is about ID not creationism.

What about the Haeckel evidence and its interpretation is not a fabrication?
 

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 23 May 2014 - 07:51 PM.

[Duchykins]

Creationists ignore the actual differences there. Still lying by omission and misrepresentation.

[shadowhawk]

Creationists ignore the actual differences there. Still lying by omission and misrepresentation.

EVIDENCE not name calling.

vote

[Duchykins]

You don't want evidence. I spent pages asking you for evidence of ID's supposed scientific theory status, all you want to do is change the subject and lie about evolution.

[shadowhawk]

You don't want evidence. I spent pages asking you for evidence of ID's supposed scientific theory status, all you want to do is change the subject and lie about evolution.

 

More name calling and I am the only one who did produce evidence.
 

[serp777]

Intelligent design is extremely unlikely, though it is possible that alien civilizations could have genetically engineered certain traits in the past during the evolution of species.

 

That still leaves the problem of where that first alien civilization came from, however, which means that there would have had to have been some natural evolution that produced intelligence without any kind of genetic interference.

 

Genetic analyses have revealed, however, that humans are a product of evolution even if there was interference in the past from aliens. A couple examples of this are mice and rats. Given that their genetics and biochemistry are relatively similar because of a common ancestor, many novel drugs can be tested on mice, which will likely predict the response in humans, although not always since we are not the same species. Chimpanzees are another great drug testing candidate since they are even more similar to us genetically. When you start doing genetic comparisons, an evolution "tree" can be seen, and all the species that came from one species have characteristics of that species. It has also been shown, for example, that humans interbred with neanderthals to form some modern day humans. The neanderthals did not go extinct, but rather they were incorporated into the European genome.

 

Overall it becomes very clear that all species were the result of one self replicating molecule. This self replicating molecule could have formed through random chance, given the vast size of the universe and the ridiculous number of organic molecules within the observable universe. The conclusion is that you don't need any kind of deity or intelligent creator to form life--it can appear purely out of random chance.

 

And Duchykins, arguing with shadow troll is completely pointless. He rejects evidence on the basis that he cannot understand it. He uses the fallacy fallacy quite often in an attempt to mislead and deflect. He will not justify or defend any statements claiming that a person's position is incorrect in his mind. And furthermore, he also only accepts evidence on the basis that he defines and knows what evidence is. It's completely futile. He then cries about ad hominem because people get so fed up with him. At that point, he takes the self-righteous moral high ground by claiming that people are "calling names", as if that strawman could possibly prove anything about his position. It is easier just to call someone a name caller than to make an argument for why that claim is wrong.

Edited by serp777, 25 May 2014 - 04:47 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Evidence.  Prove there is no ID so it should be ruled out as a subject of Scientific investigation. 

[serp777]

Evidence.  Prove there is no ID so it should be ruled out as a subject of Scientific investigation. 

 

Reading. I already said it was possible that aliens interfered with the early evolution of species on our planet, thus causing some form of intelligent design.

 

Prove there are no leprechauns so it should be ruled out as a subject of Scientific investigation. It's likely you're going to say some nonsense about going down rabbit holes, but if you use this kind of logic to justify preposterous theories, then I will use it to justify leprechauns and the celestial teapot.

 

I do not need to provide proof in the negative. That makes no sense. You made the claim that intelligent design is reasonable so you need to provide the evidence. You have the burden of proof.

 

Here is what you're doing

 

• Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.

[shadowhawk]

 

Evidence.  Prove there is no ID so it should be ruled out as a subject of Scientific investigation. 

 

Reading. I already said it was possible that aliens interfered with the early evolution of species on our planet, thus causing some form of intelligent design.

 

Prove there are no leprechauns so it should be ruled out as a subject of Scientific investigation. It's likely you're going to say some nonsense about going down rabbit holes, but if you use this kind of logic to justify preposterous theories, then I will use it to justify leprechauns and the celestial teapot.

 

I do not need to provide proof in the negative. That makes no sense. You made the claim that intelligent design is reasonable so you need to provide the evidence. You have the burden of proof.

 

Here is what you're doing

 

• Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.

 

Wrong. My argument is that ID is a proper subject if Science.  The argument is whether we should even study it.

[serp777]

 

 

Evidence.  Prove there is no ID so it should be ruled out as a subject of Scientific investigation. 

 

Reading. I already said it was possible that aliens interfered with the early evolution of species on our planet, thus causing some form of intelligent design.

 

Prove there are no leprechauns so it should be ruled out as a subject of Scientific investigation. It's likely you're going to say some nonsense about going down rabbit holes, but if you use this kind of logic to justify preposterous theories, then I will use it to justify leprechauns and the celestial teapot.

 

I do not need to provide proof in the negative. That makes no sense. You made the claim that intelligent design is reasonable so you need to provide the evidence. You have the burden of proof.

 

Here is what you're doing

 

• Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.

 

Wrong. My argument is that ID is a proper subject if Science.  The argument is whether we should even study it.

 

Right. My argument is that if ID is a proper subject OF science, then leprechauns should also be studied on the same basis since there is no evidence for that either.

 

Your conclusion that we should study ID as a proper subject of science is based on the fact that, as you said, we have no evidence against ID.

 

Again I refer you to:

 

Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.

You've given no reason why we should study ID other than there is no evidence against it. There is no evidence and no basis to believe that intelligent design occurred. Why waste time pursuing things that are most likely unverifiable, such as leprechauns?

Edited by serp777, 26 May 2014 - 07:31 AM.

[addx]

His line of persuasion here sums up to this.

1. pushing the argument that ID is a theoretical possiblity which can not be denied
2. pushing the argument that scientists must perform their due diligance and explore all competeing theoretical possibilities which can also not be denied
-----------

his desired conclusion: a good scientist will not discard ID as it is a theoretical possibility.

and this makes ID a "scientific theory".

[shadowhawk]

What nonsense.  ID is a subject of Science because Design seems to be in Nature.  Intelligence also seems to be part of nature and is necessary for some things like codes to exist.  Evolution alone would have to explain both intelligence and design by pure random chance.  It does not have that creative power.  So many things appear to be designed and an Intelligent cause is implied.  What is it?  Science is a process not a position.  It doesnt have to have an answer to be science otherwise it wouldnt exist.  Science is almost always wrong in its hunches.  It is as much science to be wrong as to be right.  We often learn from our mistakes.  The history of science is a bone yard of wrong science experiments.  Often it takes many years to prove something right or wrong. This is not an argument from silence or ridicule.  

So as I have said many times already ID is a subject of Science.   What you are doing is prejudging the subject based on your own world view which you mistakenly call science

[addx]

What nonsense.  ID is a subject of Science because Design seems to be in Nature.

"seems", no proof, interpretation and subjective thought, speculation.

Intelligence also seems to be part of nature and is necessary for some things like codes to exist.

again "seems", "codes"??? why is it necessary?

Evolution alone would have to explain both intelligence and design by pure random chance.  It does not have that creative power.

This is just said, no proof. It's just your opinion. And your opinion is severely biased by your need to be noticed by your atheistic parents

So many things appear to be designed and an Intelligent cause is implied.

There is nothing scientific in anything you've said thus far. Its all just speculation and "seems".

What you are doing is prejudging the subject based on your own world view which you mistakenly call science

No, that's what you're doing.

[shadowhawk]

Science is full of things that seem to be true, like evolution.  I believe in evolution as explained earlier in this thread.

[Duchykins]

"Let's see if things looked designed" - not a scientific theory

"Let's see if we can figure how this happened, test this mechanism" - a scientific hypothesis that could later become theory if confirmed with enough evidence

Edited by Duchykins, 26 May 2014 - 09:20 PM.

[addx]

Science is full of things that seem to be true, like evolution.  I believe in evolution as explained earlier in this thread.

Whatever.

Science attempts to understand things and offer explanations and predictions. Evolution theory does that very well.

What does ID have to offer in that sense? It does not explain things. There is not even a theory of how this design process would look like. And even if there is, how did the intelligent aliens evolve or how did God came to be? And if we start answering those questions we're really just spewing our imagination and all of that will never result in any commonly acceptable theory, any proof or any ability to predict.

So, it would be an incredible waste of time to consider it more than this.

[shadowhawk]

Science has not shown us many things.  We still have many questions.  You can't rule things out before you even study them unless your motive s something beside science.  What do you want to suppress? 

[Duchykins]

There is nothing to 'rule out' in ID. It's void of scientific usefulness and meaning. That's because it's an antievolution argument instead of a scientific hypothesis/theory. That's why you refused to talk about a biological mechanism in ID 'theory'. It doesn't exist, there is no mechanism to test and rule out.

[addx]

Science has not shown us many things.  We still have many questions.  You can't rule things out before you even study them unless your motive s something beside science.  What do you want to suppress?

Questions are ok.


But you presume that if you find a question science does not answer to your delicate standards, you think then that "science lost" (as if it were a contest between you and science) and you as a reward get to answer the same question however you like, and since "science failed", and you pointed out the "failure", your opinion must then generally be more wiser and trustworthy than "sciences" so immediately more true than ALL science even though it never went through any scientific scrutiny, but its only credibility is that it was fathomed by a person that pointed out a hole in a theory or worse yet in his own understanding of it. It's ridiculous. it shows how deeply this dives into delusion, what logical acrobatics are required to reach these ill conclusions.

You don't get to say whatever you like. You think there is a hole in evolution? You think complexity could not evolve spontaneously? Explore genetics, calculate some formulas, make predictions, prove it. And you'll bring down a theory. You won't get to write a replacement theory and have it stand scientifically true without being held to the same standards. So, these are two separate things and you're desperately trying to tie them together because you only have proof for the first thing and the second thing is complete speculation.

You can ask questions.

But if you want to answer questions you have to stand and answer them without pointing holes in other theories.

Everyone is pointing that out to you, you're completely ignoring it.

Edited by addx, 26 May 2014 - 10:11 PM.

[shadowhawk]

I am not fighting science at all.  I love science bit Scientism isn't science.  I dont think there is a hole in evolution but I do think random mutations lack the creative power to explain the ID we see around us.  ID looks in its scientific work, for another source.  We do not know what that source of information is yet.  You are the ones who will not answer any questions.  Just look at the discussion. 

[addx]

I am not fighting science at all.  I love science bit Scientism isn't science.  I dont think there is a hole in evolution but I do think random mutations lack the creative power to explain the ID we see around us.

And thats just a subjective opinion which by no accident serves your general creations world view.

Prove what you think first before going on to look for sources. Most of the scientific community(of natural sciences, not philosophy) which you so like does not agree that evolution can not explain the "diversity of life" so if you want to be all scientific and have scientists that worked years on evolution theory simply start on a wild goose chase, you might wanna first prove your claims against their well established theory.

Do you have algorhitm that explains how life forms and evolves and so can predict evolution and can make an estimate of possible diversity?

You get that going, and we can then start talking about holes in evolution theory.

[serp777]

What nonsense.  ID is a subject of Science because Design seems to be in Nature.  Intelligence also seems to be part of nature and is necessary for some things like codes to exist.  Evolution alone would have to explain both intelligence and design by pure random chance.  It does not have that creative power.  So many things appear to be designed and an Intelligent cause is implied.  What is it?  Science is a process not a position.  It doesnt have to have an answer to be science otherwise it wouldnt exist.  Science is almost always wrong in its hunches.  It is as much science to be wrong as to be right.  We often learn from our mistakes.  The history of science is a bone yard of wrong science experiments.  Often it takes many years to prove something right or wrong. This is not an argument from silence or ridicule.  

So as I have said many times already ID is a subject of Science.   What you are doing is prejudging the subject based on your own world view which you mistakenly call science

 

"Evolution alone would have to explain both intelligence and design by pure random chance.  It does not have that creative power.  So many things appear to be designed and an Intelligent cause is implied."

 

Evolution is theory about how random chance leads to certain traits being selected through natural means. It is not entirely random.. Therefore evolution can appear to be designed when it is not, in reality.

 

"It does not have that creative power."

 

Assumption. How do you know this?

 

"This is not an argument from silence or ridicule. "

 

I've spelled out how it is an argument from silence. The argument literally fits the definition. I'm not sure how much more clear i can be.

 

Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.

 

Your argument is that intelligent design should be considered since there is no evidence against it, rather than there being evidence for it.

[shadowhawk]

Evolution has changed over and again and so has what it explains  Science often has an absence of evidence.  Absence of evidence is not proof of absence.

[platypus]

What do you mean by "definitely"?  Give me an example?

Something that must have been created by an "intelligence".

[shadowhawk]

 

What do you mean by "definitely"?  Give me an example?

Something that must have been created by an "intelligence".

 

CODE such as DNA