Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-21-2019 7:19 AM
26 online now:
PaulK, RAZD (2 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume:
Total: 861,868 Year: 16,904/19,786 Month: 1,029/2,598 Week: 275/251 Day: 3/43 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design just a question for evolutionists
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 7 of 146 (792321)
10-06-2016 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
10-06-2016 6:04 PM


Well, who the designer is depends on context. When IDists are trying to get Christians to support them, it's totally God, and then when they're trying to persuade a judge that they're not violating the First Amendment they're all: "Well, it doesn't have to be God, it could be ... uh ... aliens. Yeah, aliens!"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 10-06-2016 6:04 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 28 of 146 (792342)
10-07-2016 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
10-06-2016 6:04 PM


If something has the elements of design it is designed. (X is X, Law of identity)
Life has the elements of design
Therefore life is designed.

"If something is designed then it is designed" would be the law of identity.

To examine your proposition, which is different, we would have to know what you think "the elements of design" are.

We would then need to verify your premises by checking (a) whether all things which have these elements are indeed designed (b) whether life has those elements.

Now, suppose we cannot agree on whether things with what you denote as "the elements of design" really are always designed. Suppose I were to suggest that some of them, namely living organisms, were products of evolution. Then in order to establish the first premise, you would have to come up with some argument that living things are designed rather than evolved. Which is what you were trying to do in the first place: in order to make you argument for the design and against the evolution of organisms watertight, you would first have to construct a watertight argument for the design and against the evolution of organisms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 10-06-2016 6:04 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 42 of 146 (792356)
10-07-2016 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Genomicus
10-07-2016 10:56 AM


"Imagine that in 1957 a clairvoyant biologist offered as a hypothesis the exact genetic code and mechanism of protein synthesis understood today. How would the proposal have been received? My guess is that Nature would have rejected the paper. 'This notion of the ribosome ratcheting along the messenger RNA three bases at a timeóit sounds like a computer reading a data tape. Biological systems donít work that way. In biochemistry we have templates,where all the reactants come together simultaneously, not assembly lines where machines are built step by step.'"

From: Hayes, B. The Invention of the Genetic Code. American Scientist.

Surely the paper would actually have been rejected because clairvoyance is not an accepted form of scientific inquiry. When people produced actual evidence, where was the pushback from people saying "you must be wrong because biochemistry doesn't work that way"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Genomicus, posted 10-07-2016 10:56 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Genomicus, posted 10-07-2016 12:57 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 146 (792370)
10-07-2016 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Genomicus
10-07-2016 12:57 PM


Eh, not really the point of that quote. The point of that quote is not to explore the nature of scientific publication practices. The point is to highlight how a genetic code was not an expected reality of the non-teleological framework.

Well, if you can actually find me someone who said before the discovery of the ribosome that protein synthesis couldn't happen bit by bit instead of simultaneously, or pushing back against the discoveries as they were made on the grounds that they had to be wrong, and doing so with reference to a "non-telelogical framework", then that would illustrate your point nicely.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Genomicus, posted 10-07-2016 12:57 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 94 of 146 (793500)
10-31-2016 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by mike the wiz
10-30-2016 7:39 AM


The Great Creationist Petitio Principii Again
I don't assume the premises are true. [...] 1. The elements of intelligent design make something designed.

Please state what "the elements of intelligent design" are. If it turns out that these are characteristics shared by living organisms, which scientists claim were produced by evolution, then you are indeed making an assumption that you have not yet justified.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by mike the wiz, posted 10-30-2016 7:39 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 117 of 146 (793643)
11-02-2016 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Genomicus
11-02-2016 9:17 PM


Re: Life Looks Engineered
ATP isn't a machine, by the way. ATP is a molecule. ATP synthases are machines, however. If you dispute that, then you're more than welcome to cite a single scientific paper that argues that ATP synthases aren't machines.

I say that they're not machines. They're actually musical instruments in the woodwind family. Prove me wrong, find a single scientific paper that argues that they aren't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Genomicus, posted 11-02-2016 9:17 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Genomicus, posted 11-02-2016 10:57 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 119 of 146 (793649)
11-02-2016 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Genomicus
11-02-2016 10:57 PM


Re: Life Looks Engineered
Oh my gawd. It must be embarrassing to make that kind of argument.

Quite so. And to be the originator of it should make you want to hang your head in shame.

Literally every scientific paper that describes the form and function of ATP synthases is an argument against the thesis that they're musical instruments in the woodwind family.

You mean, in that they all say it's an enzyme?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Genomicus, posted 11-02-2016 10:57 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 125 of 146 (793684)
11-03-2016 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by FLRW
11-03-2016 3:28 PM


It is clear that highly intelligent people should be the leaders of society.

Why, thank you. As my first act of rulership I banish you from this thread. Begone!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by FLRW, posted 11-03-2016 3:28 PM FLRW has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 131 of 146 (793716)
11-04-2016 8:12 PM


I see mikey tried to start a new thread to commit the same silly logical fallacy as in this one.

Mikey, mikey, please try to think of a new mistake.


Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by mike the wiz, posted 01-05-2017 5:54 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 132 of 146 (796752)
01-03-2017 10:12 PM


And again.
  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 134 of 146 (796785)
01-04-2017 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Taq
01-04-2017 11:12 AM


Re: Life Looks Engineered
Or indeed if you took a rabbit and placed it on the sidewalk would anyone say --- "oh, look, there's a whole lot of machines!"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Taq, posted 01-04-2017 11:12 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 141 of 146 (796845)
01-05-2017 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by mike the wiz
01-05-2017 6:49 AM


Life Looks Evolved
But this is logically, proof we don't, for if you have to ask me to do something strange with my eyes in order to show me there is something wrong with their design then doesn't that show how weak your argument it?

But you always have a blind spot. Doing something strange with your eyes is just the only way you're going to notice it, but it's there affecting your vision all the time, without you noticing it. (And arguably a problem you don't know you have is worse than a problem you do know you have: for example a fool who thinks he's clever is worse off than a fool who knows he's a fool.)

If it's all evolution, you have to be realistic, you would expect many odge-bodge designs.

And that's what we've got.

But if there was a perfect creator, you'd expect none.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by mike the wiz, posted 01-05-2017 6:49 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by jar, posted 01-05-2017 11:36 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019