Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does Evolution Stifle Scientific Progress?

GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 5:50:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Evolution stifles research in cryptozoology. e.g. it falsely claimed the Coelacanth went extinct 65 million years ago. Thus, research into discovering living examples of that which only fossils remain is all but nonexistent.

Creation, on the other hand, suggests that virtually any animal may still be found alive and thus encourages research.

Hilariously, the Coelacanth incident was covered up by arguing it's not the same animal because it's "so different" yet there is more difference between I and my parents than the fossil Coelacanth and the modern one.

Evolution stifles research into medicine e.g. it falsely claimed that the appendix, tonsils, and other organs were useless vestiges leading to hundreds of thousands of unessary surgeries and many deaths, as well as many compromised immune systems.

Creation, on the other hand, encourages research into finding the purpose of every part of the human body because they believe it was intelligently designed by the most intelligent being to ever exist.

Evolution stifles research into discovering new animals and new bodily functions.
Creation encourages research in both these areas.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 7:50:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't think it is really fair to blame evolution for this. Similar problems have existed without being influenced by evolution. People have been removing the foreskin believing it was useless way before evolution started declaring body parts as useless vestigial organs.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 8:00:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 7:50:57 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
I don't think it is really fair to blame evolution for this. Similar problems have existed without being influenced by evolution. People have been removing the foreskin believing it was useless way before evolution started declaring body parts as useless vestigial organs.

The Jews didn't remove the foreskin because they thought it was useless. They did it because they believed God told them to do it.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 10:11:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I wasn't talking about just the jews. Many people circumcise their baby boys for supposed medical reasons and not religious reasons. Circumcision started out as religious but that is not why it continued.
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 8:32:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 5:50:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Evolution stifles research in cryptozoology. e.g. it falsely claimed the Coelacanth went extinct 65 million years ago. Thus, research into discovering living examples of that which only fossils remain is all but nonexistent.

Creation, on the other hand, suggests that virtually any animal may still be found alive and thus encourages research.

Hilariously, the Coelacanth incident was covered up by arguing it's not the same animal because it's "so different" yet there is more difference between I and my parents than the fossil Coelacanth and the modern one.

Evolution stifles research into medicine e.g. it falsely claimed that the appendix, tonsils, and other organs were useless vestiges leading to hundreds of thousands of unessary surgeries and many deaths, as well as many compromised immune systems.

Creation, on the other hand, encourages research into finding the purpose of every part of the human body because they believe it was intelligently designed by the most intelligent being to ever exist.

Evolution stifles research into discovering new animals and new bodily functions.
Creation encourages research in both these areas.

Are you actually stating that it would be good money spend to uncover exactly what the appendix is for? Even if you found some magical creator given given gift reason for it, it does not mean that trying to save it when infected is the best medical approach.

Secondly, there is considerable scientific efforts to uncover new animals, plants, insects, etc. There is no lack of resources chasing new species. Let's face it, the only real reason to discover new species it to further our information base so when we look back via fossils and other records we have more information to piece the puzzle together. Why else do you need to discover a new mammal in the Vietnamese forests.?
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 9:57:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 5:50:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Evolution stifles research in cryptozoology. e.g. it falsely claimed the Coelacanth went extinct 65 million years ago.

No it didn't.

Thus, research into discovering living examples of that which only fossils remain is all but nonexistent.

Creation, on the other hand, suggests that virtually any animal may still be found alive and thus encourages research.

Hilariously, the Coelacanth incident was covered up by arguing it's not the same animal because it's "so different" yet there is more difference between I and my parents than the fossil Coelacanth and the modern one.

Evolution stifles research into medicine e.g. it falsely claimed that the appendix, tonsils, and other organs were useless vestiges leading to hundreds of thousands of unessary surgeries and many deaths, as well as many compromised immune systems.

No it doesn't.


Creation, on the other hand, encourages research into finding the purpose of every part of the human body because they believe it was intelligently designed by the most intelligent being to ever exist.

Evolution stifles research into discovering new animals and new bodily functions.
Creation encourages research in both these areas.
jh1234l
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 4:40:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 5:50:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Evolution stifles research in cryptozoology. e.g. it falsely claimed the Coelacanth went extinct 65 million years ago. Thus, research into discovering living examples of that which only fossils remain is all but nonexistent.


Cryptozoology is a blatant pseudoscience which does not follow the scientific method and is based on anecxdotal evidence.
Creation, on the other hand, suggests that virtually any animal may still be found alive and thus encourages research.

Hilariously, the Coelacanth incident was covered up by arguing it's not the same animal because it's "so different" yet there is more difference between I and my parents than the fossil Coelacanth and the modern one.


Not what evolutionists claim
Evolution stifles research into medicine e.g. it falsely claimed that the appendix, tonsils, and other organs were useless vestiges leading to hundreds of thousands of unessary surgeries and many deaths, as well as many compromised immune systems.

Evolution does not claim that. Vestiges do not mean useless organs, but remnants of a genetic trait that was lost. http://www.talkorigins.org...
Creation, on the other hand, encourages research into finding the purpose of every part of the human body because they believe it was intelligently designed by the most intelligent being to ever exist.

Evolution stifles research into discovering new animals and new bodily functions.
Creation encourages research in both these areas.
My political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
1 square right of Nelson Mandela, 2 squares down from Francois Hollande
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 8:13:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Random mutations and natural selections are devoid of intelligence by definition. Looking at the configurations existing in nature, we can find design; when studying anatomy we are studying the design of a specie's body. It is simply undeniable. However, design requires intelligence, but according to evolutionists, there is no intelligence in the design of nature. So there is an unsolved problem: Evolution's design of nature requires intelligence, however evolution's progenitor is devoid of intelligence.

Evolutionists try to solve their problem by pretending that they see absolutely no design, or that the design is so bad that it shouldn't be considered a design. However, both stances fail because even a small tube is considered a design if it serves a function. You can't design a functional tube too badly to be not be considered a design of a tube. The functional tube either works as a tube or it doesn't.

The only way supporters of evolution can solve this problem, is to prove that the design of nature can randomly come to be. This is done by proving that the unintelligent processes of RM and NS are capable of creating and maintaining biological systems, organs, behavior, multicellularity, among other characteristics of biology, and explaining the processes and mechanisms and proving that these processes and mechanisms exists in reality.
Naturalism and materialism are metaphysical and philosophical claims that have nothing to do with the scientific method.

The unsolved problem of scientific intelligent design is obvious.The design of nature requires intelligence. However, the supposedly intelligent progenitor cannot be objectively and scientifically found to exist. We cannot find the intelligent source with microscopes, telescopes, satellites, etc...

An objective and scientific viewpoint untainted by personal philosophical beliefs would be:
"We cannot at this time discern why the Big Bang occurred, how it occurred, how life began on earth, or how species happened to appear. But here is the evidence that we have so far:"
Graph
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 9:35:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 8:13:45 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

Evolutionists try to solve their problem by pretending that they see absolutely no design, or that the design is so bad that it shouldn't be considered a design. However, both stances fail because even a small tube is considered a design if it serves a function. You can't design a functional tube too badly to be not be considered a design of a tube. The functional tube either works as a tube or it doesn't.

The problem here is the assumption that functional utility implies design or intent. If function implies does not imply intent, as an advocate of evolutionary science would claim, then there must exist a case where something has a function, but was not designed with that intent. An example of this is the use of herbs like aloe as treatment for burns or rashes; while this is a specific purpose for which these might be used, plants were not designed as pharmaceuticals. The assumption that function implies design, then, must be false.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 9:36:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 5:50:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Evolution stifles research in cryptozoology. e.g. it falsely claimed the Coelacanth went extinct 65 million years ago. Thus, research into discovering living examples of that which only fossils remain is all but nonexistent.

Thats a bit silly. Evolution doesn't claim particular species are extinct. If we find fossils for species for which we haven't found living examples we assume they are extinct. That doesn't mean we cease to look for new species or for species that we think are extinct.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 9:38:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 8:13:45 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Looking at the configurations existing in nature, we can find design;

Please prove that statement.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 10:01:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 9:35:24 PM, Graph wrote:
At 8/20/2014 8:13:45 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

Evolutionists try to solve their problem by pretending that they see absolutely no design, or that the design is so bad that it shouldn't be considered a design. However, both stances fail because even a small tube is considered a design if it serves a function. You can't design a functional tube too badly to be not be considered a design of a tube. The functional tube either works as a tube or it doesn't.

The problem here is the assumption that functional utility implies design or intent. If function implies does not imply intent, as an advocate of evolutionary science would claim, then there must exist a case where something has a function, but was not designed with that intent. An example of this is the use of herbs like aloe as treatment for burns or rashes; while this is a specific purpose for which these might be used, plants were not designed as pharmaceuticals. The assumption that function implies design, then, must be false.

Here is what is refereed to as the "Rational model" for design (created by Simon and Pahl and Beitz):

1- designers attempt to optimize a design candidate for known constraints and objectives,
2- the design process is plan-driven,
3- the design process is understood in terms of a discrete sequence of stages.

I will concede that biology is not designed if you reasonably prove that random entities, whether it be RM & NS or something else, can create and invent organs optimized for use, with optimized location, with optimized shape, that assembles multiple components, with sub-functions performed by these components.

In other words, prove to me that random occurrences can create anything resembling a design or anything resembling the complexity of biological systems.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 10:01:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 9:38:09 PM, Floid wrote:
At 8/20/2014 8:13:45 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Looking at the configurations existing in nature, we can find design;

Please prove that statement.

The provided support for this statement exists within the statements that follows it.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 10:07:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 8:13:45 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
An objective and scientific viewpoint untainted by personal philosophical beliefs would be:
"We cannot at this time discern why the Big Bang occurred, how it occurred, how life began on earth, or how species happened to appear. But here is the evidence that we have so far:"

Darn, so close! You were doing so well until this last sentence.

The Big Bang is not a "scientific viewpoint", but a philosophical one.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 10:09:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 10:07:34 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 8/20/2014 8:13:45 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
An objective and scientific viewpoint untainted by personal philosophical beliefs would be:
"We cannot at this time discern why the Big Bang occurred, how it occurred, how life began on earth, or how species happened to appear. But here is the evidence that we have so far:"

Darn, so close! You were doing so well until this last sentence.

The Big Bang is not a "scientific viewpoint", but a philosophical one.

On second thought, "scientific viewpoint" actually is a philosophical viewpoint, so never mind.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 10:21:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 10:07:34 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 8/20/2014 8:13:45 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
An objective and scientific viewpoint untainted by personal philosophical beliefs would be:
"We cannot at this time discern why the Big Bang occurred, how it occurred, how life began on earth, or how species happened to appear. But here is the evidence that we have so far:"

Darn, so close! You were doing so well until this last sentence.

The Big Bang is not a "scientific viewpoint", but a philosophical one.

Well, there are compelling observational evidence that made the big bang the most likely and reasonable conclusion based on current evidence. By definition, that would make it a scientific theory, although you apparently disagree on it's validity.

The scientific method is really a type of inductive logic. But I will assume that you mean "a mostly philosophical one". I don't see how that would be the case as the BBT attempts to find what happened (what is) and explore the material causes of the phenomenon. Doesn't leave much room for non-scientific philosophy.
Graph
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 11:08:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 10:01:50 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/20/2014 9:35:24 PM, Graph wrote:
At 8/20/2014 8:13:45 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

Evolutionists try to solve their problem by pretending that they see absolutely no design, or that the design is so bad that it shouldn't be considered a design. However, both stances fail because even a small tube is considered a design if it serves a function. You can't design a functional tube too badly to be not be considered a design of a tube. The functional tube either works as a tube or it doesn't.

The problem here is the assumption that functional utility implies design or intent. If function implies does not imply intent, as an advocate of evolutionary science would claim, then there must exist a case where something has a function, but was not designed with that intent. An example of this is the use of herbs like aloe as treatment for burns or rashes; while this is a specific purpose for which these might be used, plants were not designed as pharmaceuticals. The assumption that function implies design, then, must be false.

Here is what is refereed to as the "Rational model" for design (created by Simon and Pahl and Beitz):

1- designers attempt to optimize a design candidate for known constraints and objectives,
2- the design process is plan-driven,
3- the design process is understood in terms of a discrete sequence of stages.

I will concede that biology is not designed if you reasonably prove that random entities, whether it be RM & NS or something else, can create and invent organs optimized for use, with optimized location, with optimized shape, that assembles multiple components, with sub-functions performed by these components.

In other words, prove to me that random occurrences can create anything resembling a design or anything resembling the complexity of biological systems.

You're still assuming that functional utility implies purposeful design. This assumption is false, so therefor your conclusion that design is apparent in biological systems does not follow. Complex systems can arise via evolutionary mechanisms by building on top of simpler systems; the implication that evolution cannot account for the existence of organs is false.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 12:53:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 11:08:14 PM, Graph wrote:
At 8/20/2014 10:01:50 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/20/2014 9:35:24 PM, Graph wrote:
At 8/20/2014 8:13:45 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

Evolutionists try to solve their problem by pretending that they see absolutely no design, or that the design is so bad that it shouldn't be considered a design. However, both stances fail because even a small tube is considered a design if it serves a function. You can't design a functional tube too badly to be not be considered a design of a tube. The functional tube either works as a tube or it doesn't.

The problem here is the assumption that functional utility implies design or intent. If function implies does not imply intent, as an advocate of evolutionary science would claim, then there must exist a case where something has a function, but was not designed with that intent. An example of this is the use of herbs like aloe as treatment for burns or rashes; while this is a specific purpose for which these might be used, plants were not designed as pharmaceuticals. The assumption that function implies design, then, must be false.

Here is what is refereed to as the "Rational model" for design (created by Simon and Pahl and Beitz):

1- designers attempt to optimize a design candidate for known constraints and objectives,
2- the design process is plan-driven,
3- the design process is understood in terms of a discrete sequence of stages.

I will concede that biology is not designed if you reasonably prove that random entities, whether it be RM & NS or something else, can create and invent organs optimized for use, with optimized location, with optimized shape, that assembles multiple components, with sub-functions performed by these components.

In other words, prove to me that random occurrences can create anything resembling a design or anything resembling the complexity of biological systems.

You're still assuming that functional utility implies purposeful design. This assumption is false, so therefor your conclusion that design is apparent in biological systems does not follow. Complex systems can arise via evolutionary mechanisms by building on top of simpler systems; the implication that evolution cannot account for the existence of organs is false.

..and that would be completely ignoring the examples where organs were not optimized for use, were not in an optimum location, and/or were not of optimum shape.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 4:12:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 11:08:14 PM, Graph wrote:
At 8/20/2014 10:01:50 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/20/2014 9:35:24 PM, Graph wrote:
At 8/20/2014 8:13:45 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

Evolutionists try to solve their problem by pretending that they see absolutely no design, or that the design is so bad that it shouldn't be considered a design. However, both stances fail because even a small tube is considered a design if it serves a function. You can't design a functional tube too badly to be not be considered a design of a tube. The functional tube either works as a tube or it doesn't.

The problem here is the assumption that functional utility implies design or intent. If function implies does not imply intent, as an advocate of evolutionary science would claim, then there must exist a case where something has a function, but was not designed with that intent. An example of this is the use of herbs like aloe as treatment for burns or rashes; while this is a specific purpose for which these might be used, plants were not designed as pharmaceuticals. The assumption that function implies design, then, must be false.

Here is what is refereed to as the "Rational model" for design (created by Simon and Pahl and Beitz):

1- designers attempt to optimize a design candidate for known constraints and objectives,
2- the design process is plan-driven,
3- the design process is understood in terms of a discrete sequence of stages.

I will concede that biology is not designed if you reasonably prove that random entities, whether it be RM & NS or something else, can create and invent organs optimized for use, with optimized location, with optimized shape, that assembles multiple components, with sub-functions performed by these components.

In other words, prove to me that random occurrences can create anything resembling a design or anything resembling the complexity of biological systems.

You're still assuming that functional utility implies purposeful design. This assumption is false, so therefor your conclusion that design is apparent in biological systems does not follow. Complex systems can arise via evolutionary mechanisms by building on top of simpler systems; the implication that evolution cannot account for the existence of organs is false.

I brought the definition of design, which happens to include function among being plan-driven, and it's construction happens in a sequence of stages. Unless you are arguing that function have nothing to do with design, please address my argument properly.

If you would like to offer an alternative definition or criteria for design, then go ahead. And if you are simply uncomfortable with the word "design", then simply provide an argument that a random entity can create anything resembling biology.

"Complex systems can arise via evolutionary mechanisms by building on top of simpler systems; the implication that evolution cannot account for the existence of organs is false."

Are you claiming that "simpler systems" aren't too complex to be created by evolutionary mechanisms? Interesting.
Well, shoot! Provide empirical evidence or logical argument, or a realistic scenario that/where an evolutionary mechanism can create a "simple organ" from nothing, or create a relatively complex organ from a simpler organ, providing the steps to your argument or scenario.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 4:17:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 12:53:12 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/21/2014 11:08:14 PM, Graph wrote:
At 8/20/2014 10:01:50 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/20/2014 9:35:24 PM, Graph wrote:
At 8/20/2014 8:13:45 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

Evolutionists try to solve their problem by pretending that they see absolutely no design, or that the design is so bad that it shouldn't be considered a design. However, both stances fail because even a small tube is considered a design if it serves a function. You can't design a functional tube too badly to be not be considered a design of a tube. The functional tube either works as a tube or it doesn't.

The problem here is the assumption that functional utility implies design or intent. If function implies does not imply intent, as an advocate of evolutionary science would claim, then there must exist a case where something has a function, but was not designed with that intent. An example of this is the use of herbs like aloe as treatment for burns or rashes; while this is a specific purpose for which these might be used, plants were not designed as pharmaceuticals. The assumption that function implies design, then, must be false.

Here is what is refereed to as the "Rational model" for design (created by Simon and Pahl and Beitz):

1- designers attempt to optimize a design candidate for known constraints and objectives,
2- the design process is plan-driven,
3- the design process is understood in terms of a discrete sequence of stages.

I will concede that biology is not designed if you reasonably prove that random entities, whether it be RM & NS or something else, can create and invent organs optimized for use, with optimized location, with optimized shape, that assembles multiple components, with sub-functions performed by these components.

In other words, prove to me that random occurrences can create anything resembling a design or anything resembling the complexity of biological systems.

You're still assuming that functional utility implies purposeful design. This assumption is false, so therefor your conclusion that design is apparent in biological systems does not follow. Complex systems can arise via evolutionary mechanisms by building on top of simpler systems; the implication that evolution cannot account for the existence of organs is false.

..and that would be completely ignoring the examples where organs were not optimized for use, were not in an optimum location, and/or were not of optimum shape.

Design contains limitations; we are not designed to jump over mountains or be immortal. We only have a vague idea behind the intention of the design.

If you have a logical argument, then please provide it. Arguments from poor design happen to have a poor life expectancy as functions eventually gets discovered, and they are based on the argument from ignorance fallacy.

It would be much appreciated if you provide something that can't be exchange with: - "if you don't know how this evolved that means it didn't." - "You don't know what selective advantage this could have therefore it didn't evolve".
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 1:43:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 4:17:26 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/22/2014 12:53:12 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/21/2014 11:08:14 PM, Graph wrote:
At 8/20/2014 10:01:50 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/20/2014 9:35:24 PM, Graph wrote:
At 8/20/2014 8:13:45 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

Evolutionists try to solve their problem by pretending that they see absolutely no design, or that the design is so bad that it shouldn't be considered a design. However, both stances fail because even a small tube is considered a design if it serves a function. You can't design a functional tube too badly to be not be considered a design of a tube. The functional tube either works as a tube or it doesn't.

The problem here is the assumption that functional utility implies design or intent. If function implies does not imply intent, as an advocate of evolutionary science would claim, then there must exist a case where something has a function, but was not designed with that intent. An example of this is the use of herbs like aloe as treatment for burns or rashes; while this is a specific purpose for which these might be used, plants were not designed as pharmaceuticals. The assumption that function implies design, then, must be false.

Here is what is refereed to as the "Rational model" for design (created by Simon and Pahl and Beitz):

1- designers attempt to optimize a design candidate for known constraints and objectives,
2- the design process is plan-driven,
3- the design process is understood in terms of a discrete sequence of stages.

I will concede that biology is not designed if you reasonably prove that random entities, whether it be RM & NS or something else, can create and invent organs optimized for use, with optimized location, with optimized shape, that assembles multiple components, with sub-functions performed by these components.

In other words, prove to me that random occurrences can create anything resembling a design or anything resembling the complexity of biological systems.

You're still assuming that functional utility implies purposeful design. This assumption is false, so therefor your conclusion that design is apparent in biological systems does not follow. Complex systems can arise via evolutionary mechanisms by building on top of simpler systems; the implication that evolution cannot account for the existence of organs is false.

..and that would be completely ignoring the examples where organs were not optimized for use, were not in an optimum location, and/or were not of optimum shape.

Design contains limitations; we are not designed to jump over mountains or be immortal. We only have a vague idea behind the intention of the design.

Making excuses for bad design already? ;-)

If you have a logical argument, then please provide it. Arguments from poor design happen to have a poor life expectancy as functions eventually gets discovered, and they are based on the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Actually, you are relying on an argument from ignorance. You have suggested optimally made organs for use, shape, or location support ID. If I or anyone else cannot provide the exact way in which natural processes achieved this result, then an intelligent designer should be the obvious conclusion, according to you. That is a god of the gaps argument.

It would be much appreciated if you provide something that can't be exchange with: - "if you don't know how this evolved that means it didn't." - "You don't know what selective advantage this could have therefore it didn't evolve".

Again, your planned retort is relying on my possible ignorance instead of your knowledge. I encourage you to show exactly how an intelligent designer created anything. Your argument can sink or swim by it's own merit, instead of trying to inappropriately shift the burden to others. Can you defend your claim?

Also, as I suggested earlier, there are indeed examples of very bad 'design'. These bad 'designs' support evolutionary processes, not an intelligent designer.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 2:37:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 1:43:47 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/22/2014 4:17:26 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/22/2014 12:53:12 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/21/2014 11:08:14 PM, Graph wrote:
At 8/20/2014 10:01:50 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/20/2014 9:35:24 PM, Graph wrote:
At 8/20/2014 8:13:45 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

Evolutionists try to solve their problem by pretending that they see absolutely no design, or that the design is so bad that it shouldn't be considered a design. However, both stances fail because even a small tube is considered a design if it serves a function. You can't design a functional tube too badly to be not be considered a design of a tube. The functional tube either works as a tube or it doesn't.

The problem here is the assumption that functional utility implies design or intent. If function implies does not imply intent, as an advocate of evolutionary science would claim, then there must exist a case where something has a function, but was not designed with that intent. An example of this is the use of herbs like aloe as treatment for burns or rashes; while this is a specific purpose for which these might be used, plants were not designed as pharmaceuticals. The assumption that function implies design, then, must be false.

Here is what is refereed to as the "Rational model" for design (created by Simon and Pahl and Beitz):

1- designers attempt to optimize a design candidate for known constraints and objectives,
2- the design process is plan-driven,
3- the design process is understood in terms of a discrete sequence of stages.

I will concede that biology is not designed if you reasonably prove that random entities, whether it be RM & NS or something else, can create and invent organs optimized for use, with optimized location, with optimized shape, that assembles multiple components, with sub-functions performed by these components.

In other words, prove to me that random occurrences can create anything resembling a design or anything resembling the complexity of biological systems.

You're still assuming that functional utility implies purposeful design. This assumption is false, so therefor your conclusion that design is apparent in biological systems does not follow. Complex systems can arise via evolutionary mechanisms by building on top of simpler systems; the implication that evolution cannot account for the existence of organs is false.

..and that would be completely ignoring the examples where organs were not optimized for use, were not in an optimum location, and/or were not of optimum shape.

Design contains limitations; we are not designed to jump over mountains or be immortal. We only have a vague idea behind the intention of the design.

Making excuses for bad design already? ;-)

Limitations of the design have nothing to do with the limitations of the designer, so the conclusion of bad design is invalid.


If you have a logical argument, then please provide it. Arguments from poor design happen to have a poor life expectancy as functions eventually gets discovered, and they are based on the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Actually, you are relying on an argument from ignorance. You have suggested optimally made organs for use, shape, or location support ID. If I or anyone else cannot provide the exact way in which natural processes achieved this result, then an intelligent designer should be the obvious conclusion, according to you. That is a god of the gaps argument.

Actually, I did not assign any religious god. I only mentioned an intelligent entity.

Second of all, you committed an even bigger strawman (which was hastily captured and incinerated) by misrepresenting my argument.
My argument is that there are certain features that can only exist with an intelligent designer. Just like archeologists can conclude that an object belongs to a civilization.


It would be much appreciated if you provide something that can't be exchange with: - "if you don't know how this evolved that means it didn't." - "You don't know what selective advantage this could have therefore it didn't evolve".

Again, your planned retort is relying on my possible ignorance instead of your knowledge. I encourage you to show exactly how an intelligent designer created anything. Your argument can sink or swim by it's own merit, instead of trying to inappropriately shift the burden to others. Can you defend your claim?

Also, as I suggested earlier, there are indeed examples of very bad 'design'. These bad 'designs' support evolutionary processes, not an intelligent designer.

Your position claims knowledge of the mechanisms involved in the invention, design, and assembly of any bio-system (heart, lung, blood vessels, etc...). I do not claim to know that, however you and your position claim to be on a different boat.

My belief in ID, just like your belief in naturalism, is philosophical not scientific. However, you also carry additional burden by claiming knowledge of material causes and mechanisms behind the diversity of life; that is usually supported by empirical and scientific evidence.

If anything, I am claiming that you are using the wishful thinking fallacy, in which your belief is based on emotions, not logic or evidence.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 3:11:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 2:37:47 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/22/2014 1:43:47 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/22/2014 4:17:26 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/22/2014 12:53:12 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/21/2014 11:08:14 PM, Graph wrote:
At 8/20/2014 10:01:50 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/20/2014 9:35:24 PM, Graph wrote:
At 8/20/2014 8:13:45 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

Evolutionists try to solve their problem by pretending that they see absolutely no design, or that the design is so bad that it shouldn't be considered a design. However, both stances fail because even a small tube is considered a design if it serves a function. You can't design a functional tube too badly to be not be considered a design of a tube. The functional tube either works as a tube or it doesn't.

The problem here is the assumption that functional utility implies design or intent. If function implies does not imply intent, as an advocate of evolutionary science would claim, then there must exist a case where something has a function, but was not designed with that intent. An example of this is the use of herbs like aloe as treatment for burns or rashes; while this is a specific purpose for which these might be used, plants were not designed as pharmaceuticals. The assumption that function implies design, then, must be false.

Here is what is refereed to as the "Rational model" for design (created by Simon and Pahl and Beitz):

1- designers attempt to optimize a design candidate for known constraints and objectives,
2- the design process is plan-driven,
3- the design process is understood in terms of a discrete sequence of stages.

I will concede that biology is not designed if you reasonably prove that random entities, whether it be RM & NS or something else, can create and invent organs optimized for use, with optimized location, with optimized shape, that assembles multiple components, with sub-functions performed by these components.

In other words, prove to me that random occurrences can create anything resembling a design or anything resembling the complexity of biological systems.

You're still assuming that functional utility implies purposeful design. This assumption is false, so therefor your conclusion that design is apparent in biological systems does not follow. Complex systems can arise via evolutionary mechanisms by building on top of simpler systems; the implication that evolution cannot account for the existence of organs is false.

..and that would be completely ignoring the examples where organs were not optimized for use, were not in an optimum location, and/or were not of optimum shape.

Design contains limitations; we are not designed to jump over mountains or be immortal. We only have a vague idea behind the intention of the design.

Making excuses for bad design already? ;-)

Limitations of the design have nothing to do with the limitations of the designer, so the conclusion of bad design is invalid.


If you have a logical argument, then please provide it. Arguments from poor design happen to have a poor life expectancy as functions eventually gets discovered, and they are based on the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Actually, you are relying on an argument from ignorance. You have suggested optimally made organs for use, shape, or location support ID. If I or anyone else cannot provide the exact way in which natural processes achieved this result, then an intelligent designer should be the obvious conclusion, according to you. That is a god of the gaps argument.

Actually, I did not assign any religious god. I only mentioned an intelligent entity.

Second of all, you committed an even bigger strawman (which was hastily captured and incinerated) by misrepresenting my argument.
My argument is that there are certain features that can only exist with an intelligent designer. Just like archeologists can conclude that an object belongs to a civilization.



It would be much appreciated if you provide something that can't be exchange with: - "if you don't know how this evolved that means it didn't." - "You don't know what selective advantage this could have therefore it didn't evolve".

Again, your planned retort is relying on my possible ignorance instead of your knowledge. I encourage you to show exactly how an intelligent designer created anything. Your argument can sink or swim by it's own merit, instead of trying to inappropriately shift the burden to others. Can you defend your claim?

Also, as I suggested earlier, there are indeed examples of very bad 'design'. These bad 'designs' support evolutionary processes, not an intelligent designer.

Your position claims knowledge of the mechanisms involved in the invention, design, and assembly of any bio-system (heart, lung, blood vessels, etc...). I do not claim to know that, however you and your position claim to be on a different boat.

My belief in ID, just like your belief in naturalism, is philosophical not scientific. However, you also carry additional burden by claiming knowledge of material causes and mechanisms behind the diversity of life; that is usually supported by empirical and scientific evidence.

If anything, I am claiming that you are using the wishful thinking fallacy, in which your belief is based on emotions, not logic or evidence.

Ok, So you cannot not back your claim of an intelligent designer? The validity of ID does not depend on my (or anyone else's) ability to defend alternatives to it. It either stands on its own or it fails. For the record, it failed long ago.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 3:25:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 3:11:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/22/2014 2:37:47 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/22/2014 1:43:47 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/22/2014 4:17:26 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/22/2014 12:53:12 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/21/2014 11:08:14 PM, Graph wrote:
At 8/20/2014 10:01:50 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/20/2014 9:35:24 PM, Graph wrote:
At 8/20/2014 8:13:45 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

Evolutionists try to solve their problem by pretending that they see absolutely no design, or that the design is so bad that it shouldn't be considered a design. However, both stances fail because even a small tube is considered a design if it serves a function. You can't design a functional tube too badly to be not be considered a design of a tube. The functional tube either works as a tube or it doesn't.

The problem here is the assumption that functional utility implies design or intent. If function implies does not imply intent, as an advocate of evolutionary science would claim, then there must exist a case where something has a function, but was not designed with that intent. An example of this is the use of herbs like aloe as treatment for burns or rashes; while this is a specific purpose for which these might be used, plants were not designed as pharmaceuticals. The assumption that function implies design, then, must be false.

Here is what is refereed to as the "Rational model" for design (created by Simon and Pahl and Beitz):

1- designers attempt to optimize a design candidate for known constraints and objectives,
2- the design process is plan-driven,
3- the design process is understood in terms of a discrete sequence of stages.

I will concede that biology is not designed if you reasonably prove that random entities, whether it be RM & NS or something else, can create and invent organs optimized for use, with optimized location, with optimized shape, that assembles multiple components, with sub-functions performed by these components.

In other words, prove to me that random occurrences can create anything resembling a design or anything resembling the complexity of biological systems.

You're still assuming that functional utility implies purposeful design. This assumption is false, so therefor your conclusion that design is apparent in biological systems does not follow. Complex systems can arise via evolutionary mechanisms by building on top of simpler systems; the implication that evolution cannot account for the existence of organs is false.

..and that would be completely ignoring the examples where organs were not optimized for use, were not in an optimum location, and/or were not of optimum shape.

Design contains limitations; we are not designed to jump over mountains or be immortal. We only have a vague idea behind the intention of the design.

Making excuses for bad design already? ;-)

Limitations of the design have nothing to do with the limitations of the designer, so the conclusion of bad design is invalid.


If you have a logical argument, then please provide it. Arguments from poor design happen to have a poor life expectancy as functions eventually gets discovered, and they are based on the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Actually, you are relying on an argument from ignorance. You have suggested optimally made organs for use, shape, or location support ID. If I or anyone else cannot provide the exact way in which natural processes achieved this result, then an intelligent designer should be the obvious conclusion, according to you. That is a god of the gaps argument.

Actually, I did not assign any religious god. I only mentioned an intelligent entity.

Second of all, you committed an even bigger strawman (which was hastily captured and incinerated) by misrepresenting my argument.
My argument is that there are certain features that can only exist with an intelligent designer. Just like archeologists can conclude that an object belongs to a civilization.



It would be much appreciated if you provide something that can't be exchange with: - "if you don't know how this evolved that means it didn't." - "You don't know what selective advantage this could have therefore it didn't evolve".

Again, your planned retort is relying on my possible ignorance instead of your knowledge. I encourage you to show exactly how an intelligent designer created anything. Your argument can sink or swim by it's own merit, instead of trying to inappropriately shift the burden to others. Can you defend your claim?

Also, as I suggested earlier, there are indeed examples of very bad 'design'. These bad 'designs' support evolutionary processes, not an intelligent designer.

Your position claims knowledge of the mechanisms involved in the invention, design, and assembly of any bio-system (heart, lung, blood vessels, etc...). I do not claim to know that, however you and your position claim to be on a different boat.

My belief in ID, just like your belief in naturalism, is philosophical not scientific. However, you also carry additional burden by claiming knowledge of material causes and mechanisms behind the diversity of life; that is usually supported by empirical and scientific evidence.

If anything, I am claiming that you are using the wishful thinking fallacy, in which your belief is based on emotions, not logic or evidence.

Ok, So you cannot not back your claim of an intelligent designer? The validity of ID does not depend on my (or anyone else's) ability to defend alternatives to it. It either stands on its own or it fails. For the record, it failed long ago.

Refer my first two posts in the quote above for the support, in which your only response was a claim of poor design and strawmen. Until then, I will take this as a concession.

The second statement is hilarious considering that you provided no argument in support of naturalism or evolutionary mechanisms being responsible for biological systems.

Your last statement is an opinion that lacks reasoning.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 6:38:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 3:25:31 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/22/2014 3:11:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/22/2014 2:37:47 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/22/2014 1:43:47 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/22/2014 4:17:26 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/22/2014 12:53:12 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/21/2014 11:08:14 PM, Graph wrote:
At 8/20/2014 10:01:50 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/20/2014 9:35:24 PM, Graph wrote:
At 8/20/2014 8:13:45 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

Evolutionists try to solve their problem by pretending that they see absolutely no design, or that the design is so bad that it shouldn't be considered a design. However, both stances fail because even a small tube is considered a design if it serves a function. You can't design a functional tube too badly to be not be considered a design of a tube. The functional tube either works as a tube or it doesn't.

The problem here is the assumption that functional utility implies design or intent. If function implies does not imply intent, as an advocate of evolutionary science would claim, then there must exist a case where something has a function, but was not designed with that intent. An example of this is the use of herbs like aloe as treatment for burns or rashes; while this is a specific purpose for which these might be used, plants were not designed as pharmaceuticals. The assumption that function implies design, then, must be false.

Here is what is refereed to as the "Rational model" for design (created by Simon and Pahl and Beitz):

1- designers attempt to optimize a design candidate for known constraints and objectives,
2- the design process is plan-driven,
3- the design process is understood in terms of a discrete sequence of stages.

I will concede that biology is not designed if you reasonably prove that random entities, whether it be RM & NS or something else, can create and invent organs optimized for use, with optimized location, with optimized shape, that assembles multiple components, with sub-functions performed by these components.

In other words, prove to me that random occurrences can create anything resembling a design or anything resembling the complexity of biological systems.

You're still assuming that functional utility implies purposeful design. This assumption is false, so therefor your conclusion that design is apparent in biological systems does not follow. Complex systems can arise via evolutionary mechanisms by building on top of simpler systems; the implication that evolution cannot account for the existence of organs is false.

..and that would be completely ignoring the examples where organs were not optimized for use, were not in an optimum location, and/or were not of optimum shape.

Design contains limitations; we are not designed to jump over mountains or be immortal. We only have a vague idea behind the intention of the design.

Making excuses for bad design already? ;-)

Limitations of the design have nothing to do with the limitations of the designer, so the conclusion of bad design is invalid.


If you have a logical argument, then please provide it. Arguments from poor design happen to have a poor life expectancy as functions eventually gets discovered, and they are based on the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Actually, you are relying on an argument from ignorance. You have suggested optimally made organs for use, shape, or location support ID. If I or anyone else cannot provide the exact way in which natural processes achieved this result, then an intelligent designer should be the obvious conclusion, according to you. That is a god of the gaps argument.

Actually, I did not assign any religious god. I only mentioned an intelligent entity.

Second of all, you committed an even bigger strawman (which was hastily captured and incinerated) by misrepresenting my argument.
My argument is that there are certain features that can only exist with an intelligent designer. Just like archeologists can conclude that an object belongs to a civilization.



It would be much appreciated if you provide something that can't be exchange with: - "if you don't know how this evolved that means it didn't." - "You don't know what selective advantage this could have therefore it didn't evolve".

Again, your planned retort is relying on my possible ignorance instead of your knowledge. I encourage you to show exactly how an intelligent designer created anything. Your argument can sink or swim by it's own merit, instead of trying to inappropriately shift the burden to others. Can you defend your claim?

Also, as I suggested earlier, there are indeed examples of very bad 'design'. These bad 'designs' support evolutionary processes, not an intelligent designer.

Your position claims knowledge of the mechanisms involved in the invention, design, and assembly of any bio-system (heart, lung, blood vessels, etc...). I do not claim to know that, however you and your position claim to be on a different boat.

My belief in ID, just like your belief in naturalism, is philosophical not scientific. However, you also carry additional burden by claiming knowledge of material causes and mechanisms behind the diversity of life; that is usually supported by empirical and scientific evidence.

If anything, I am claiming that you are using the wishful thinking fallacy, in which your belief is based on emotions, not logic or evidence.

Ok, So you cannot not back your claim of an intelligent designer? The validity of ID does not depend on my (or anyone else's) ability to defend alternatives to it. It either stands on its own or it fails. For the record, it failed long ago.

Refer my first two posts in the quote above for the support, in which your only response was a claim of poor design and strawmen. Until then, I will take this as a concession.

You can claim 'concession' all you want, but that doesn't make it so. In your posts above (which I believe are quoted in this post), you suggested that a functional tube is evidence of design. You still need to explain why no other explanation would suffice or why ID would be the obvious choice. The fact is there are other explanations, and your assertion that ID is the only option is invalid.

The second statement is hilarious considering that you provided no argument in support of naturalism or evolutionary mechanisms being responsible for biological systems.

Hilarious, eh? You obviously do not understand burden of proof. You made a claim, and you have not supported it with anything more than assertion and criticism of evolution. Even if evolution is shown to be false tomorrow, ID will not take its place because it does not have the explanatory power and it is unfalsifiable due to the mysterious designer which cannot be proven to exist. As I stated before, ID is not validated by my ability to defend alternatives. I do not have to defend evolution, ID must stand on its own merit.

Your last statement is an opinion that lacks reasoning.

Here are few court cases, many of which the court ruling plainly states creation science or Intelligent design are not science. I consider that a fairly rational reason to consider ID to be inadequate.

http://ncse.com...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 7:32:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 6:38:06 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/22/2014 3:25:31 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/22/2014 3:11:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/22/2014 2:37:47 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/22/2014 1:43:47 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/22/2014 4:17:26 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/22/2014 12:53:12 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/21/2014 11:08:14 PM, Graph wrote:
You're still assuming that functional utility implies purposeful design. This assumption is false, so therefor your conclusion that design is apparent in biological systems does not follow. Complex systems can arise via evolutionary mechanisms by building on top of simpler systems; the implication that evolution cannot account for the existence of organs is false.

..and that would be completely ignoring the examples where organs were not optimized for use, were not in an optimum location, and/or were not of optimum shape.

Design contains limitations; we are not designed to jump over mountains or be immortal. We only have a vague idea behind the intention of the design.

Making excuses for bad design already? ;-)

Limitations of the design have nothing to do with the limitations of the designer, so the conclusion of bad design is invalid.


If you have a logical argument, then please provide it. Arguments from poor design happen to have a poor life expectancy as functions eventually gets discovered, and they are based on the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Actually, you are relying on an argument from ignorance. You have suggested optimally made organs for use, shape, or location support ID. If I or anyone else cannot provide the exact way in which natural processes achieved this result, then an intelligent designer should be the obvious conclusion, according to you. That is a god of the gaps argument.

Actually, I did not assign any religious god. I only mentioned an intelligent entity.

Second of all, you committed an even bigger strawman (which was hastily captured and incinerated) by misrepresenting my argument.
My argument is that there are certain features that can only exist with an intelligent designer. Just like archeologists can conclude that an object belongs to a civilization.



It would be much appreciated if you provide something that can't be exchange with: - "if you don't know how this evolved that means it didn't." - "You don't know what selective advantage this could have therefore it didn't evolve".

Again, your planned retort is relying on my possible ignorance instead of your knowledge. I encourage you to show exactly how an intelligent designer created anything. Your argument can sink or swim by it's own merit, instead of trying to inappropriately shift the burden to others. Can you defend your claim?

Also, as I suggested earlier, there are indeed examples of very bad 'design'. These bad 'designs' support evolutionary processes, not an intelligent designer.

Your position claims knowledge of the mechanisms involved in the invention, design, and assembly of any bio-system (heart, lung, blood vessels, etc...). I do not claim to know that, however you and your position claim to be on a different boat.

My belief in ID, just like your belief in naturalism, is philosophical not scientific. However, you also carry additional burden by claiming knowledge of material causes and mechanisms behind the diversity of life; that is usually supported by empirical and scientific evidence.

If anything, I am claiming that you are using the wishful thinking fallacy, in which your belief is based on emotions, not logic or evidence.

Ok, So you cannot not back your claim of an intelligent designer? The validity of ID does not depend on my (or anyone else's) ability to defend alternatives to it. It either stands on its own or it fails. For the record, it failed long ago.

Refer my first two posts in the quote above for the support, in which your only response was a claim of poor design and strawmen. Until then, I will take this as a concession.

You can claim 'concession' all you want, but that doesn't make it so. In your posts above (which I believe are quoted in this post), you suggested that a functional tube is evidence of design. You still need to explain why no other explanation would suffice or why ID would be the obvious choice. The fact is there are other explanations, and your assertion that ID is the only option is invalid.

This is a dichotomy (law of excluded middle). The entity is either intelligent or non-intelligent. There is no half- or quarter-intelligent entity.

Argument #1:
1- Non-intelligent entities cannot create objects with design features.
2- Biology contains design features.
C: Biology was not created by a non-intelligent entity.

Argument #2:
1- Nature can only be attributed to an intelligent entity or a non intelligent entity (Disjunctive syllogism)
2- Biology was not created by a non-intelligent entity -> Nature is not attributed to a non-intelligent entity.
C: It is the case that nature is attributed to an intelligent entity.

I previously invited you to argue against premise 1 and 2 from argument #1, and the offer is still here.


The second statement is hilarious considering that you provided no argument in support of naturalism or evolutionary mechanisms being responsible for biological systems.

Hilarious, eh? You obviously do not understand burden of proof. You made a claim, and you have not supported it with anything more than assertion and criticism of evolution. Even if evolution is shown to be false tomorrow, ID will not take its place because it does not have the explanatory power and it is unfalsifiable due to the mysterious designer which cannot be proven to exist. As I stated before, ID is not validated by my ability to defend alternatives. I do not have to defend evolution, ID must stand on its own merit.

As I said, my belief in ID is completely philosophical; I do not believe ID is science.

My view on ID is expressed in my first post in this topic (last two paragraphs): http://www.debate.org...

Sometimes, it is best to admit that we do not know. It is extremely unlikely with current technology and trend of events to find the answer to the origin of life and it's diversity.

Your last statement is an opinion that lacks reasoning.

Here are few court cases, many of which the court ruling plainly states creation science or Intelligent design are not science. I consider that a fairly rational reason to consider ID to be inadequate.

http://ncse.com...

These court cases are more about the freedom of speech rather than ID vs Evolution.
When using "ID", I do not mean "Scientific ID"; it is not my view to defend. Though I'd think you would defend Darwinian evolution as a science as implied by the topic.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 8:21:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

This is a dichotomy (law of excluded middle). The entity is either intelligent or non-intelligent. There is no half- or quarter-intelligent entity.

Argument #1:
1- Non-intelligent entities cannot create objects with design features.

I challenge this premise. Crystals and snowflakes are highly structured objects which are derived from non intelligent means.

2- Biology contains design features.
C: Biology was not created by a non-intelligent entity.

Argument #2:
1- Nature can only be attributed to an intelligent entity or a non intelligent entity (Disjunctive syllogism)
2- Biology was not created by a non-intelligent entity -> Nature is not attributed to a non-intelligent entity.

You'll need to support that premise or it is simply an assertion.

C: It is the case that nature is attributed to an intelligent entity.


I previously invited you to argue against premise 1 and 2 from argument #1, and the offer is still here.

You are not addressing the big issue with ID. Where and who is your designer- how do you know they exist? Do we have anything we know he/she/it actually designed - if not then how can you know anything has been designed by your mysterious designer?



The second statement is hilarious considering that you provided no argument in support of naturalism or evolutionary mechanisms being responsible for biological systems.

Hilarious, eh? You obviously do not understand burden of proof. You made a claim, and you have not supported it with anything more than assertion and criticism of evolution. Even if evolution is shown to be false tomorrow, ID will not take its place because it does not have the explanatory power and it is unfalsifiable due to the mysterious designer which cannot be proven to exist. As I stated before, ID is not validated by my ability to defend alternatives. I do not have to defend evolution, ID must stand on its own merit.

As I said, my belief in ID is completely philosophical; I do not believe ID is science.

We agree on that, but you do realize this is the science forum, right?

My view on ID is expressed in my first post in this topic (last two paragraphs): http://www.debate.org...

Sometimes, it is best to admit that we do not know. It is extremely unlikely with current technology and trend of events to find the answer to the origin of life and it's diversity.

I agree, "I don't know" is a completely valid answer, and it is probably not used enough. However, we should never accept "I don't know" as the final answer and be content in ignorance.

Your last statement is an opinion that lacks reasoning.

Here are few court cases, many of which the court ruling plainly states creation science or Intelligent design are not science. I consider that a fairly rational reason to consider ID to be inadequate.

http://ncse.com...

These court cases are more about the freedom of speech rather than ID vs Evolution.
When using "ID", I do not mean "Scientific ID"; it is not my view to defend. Though I'd think you would defend Darwinian evolution as a science as implied by the topic.

If you concede ID is not a science, there is no need for me to refute it scientifically (or defend evolution). Also, the topic says nothing about ID which is what drew me into the conversation. I have responded to your tangent and not necessarily to the topic. (Sorry, Garrett!)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 11:19:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 10:11:22 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
I wasn't talking about just the jews. Many people circumcise their baby boys for supposed medical reasons and not religious reasons. Circumcision started out as religious but that is not why it continued.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends circumcision, saying the benefits outweigh the risks:

http://www.nytimes.com...

So this should be a +1 for Creationism, not an argument against it, which is what you seem to imply.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Otokage
Posts: 2,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 3:37:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 5:50:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Evolution stifles research in cryptozoology. e.g. it falsely claimed the Coelacanth went extinct 65 million years ago. Thus, research into discovering living examples of that which only fossils remain is all but nonexistent.

Creation, on the other hand, suggests that virtually any animal may still be found alive and thus encourages research.

Hilariously, the Coelacanth incident was covered up by arguing it's not the same animal because it's "so different" yet there is more difference between I and my parents than the fossil Coelacanth and the modern one.

Evolution stifles research into medicine e.g. it falsely claimed that the appendix, tonsils, and other organs were useless vestiges leading to hundreds of thousands of unessary surgeries and many deaths, as well as many compromised immune systems.

Creation, on the other hand, encourages research into finding the purpose of every part of the human body because they believe it was intelligently designed by the most intelligent being to ever exist.

Evolution stifles research into discovering new animals and new bodily functions.
Creation encourages research in both these areas.

Evolution can not "stifle" research since it is a paradigm of biology, and thus biology could not advance in the fields of, ie genetics, without evolution.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 3:53:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 5:50:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Evolution stifles research in cryptozoology. e.g. it falsely claimed the Coelacanth went extinct 65 million years ago. Thus, research into discovering living examples of that which only fossils remain is all but nonexistent.


Cryptozoology is pseudoscience, so it's really a good thing; I don't see a problem.