Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

In Defense of Intelligent Design

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 3:15:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 2:39:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Dylan, which elements of the paper did you find new or insightful?

To me it all looked rehashed.

It's not meant to be groundbreaking. It's just a well-constructed defense of ID's place in the scientific debate.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 3:46:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 3:15:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2015 2:39:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Dylan, which elements of the paper did you find new or insightful?

To me it all looked rehashed.

It's not meant to be groundbreaking. It's just a well-constructed defense of ID's place in the scientific debate.

Really, any defence should have data and/or some scientific content. Arguments and analogies ultimately have no meaning in the hard sciences.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 3:49:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 3:15:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

It's not meant to be groundbreaking. It's just a well-constructed defense of ID's place in the scientific debate.

Dylan, firstly there is no scientific debate. A survey of scientific papers confirms that.

Secondly, there's some intellectual deceit going on. ID began as an argument of 'design intent' from the appearance of certain organic functions, and has since switched tacks to now claiming that the genetic mechanism itself was intelligently conceived. Those are different conjectures, and would normally come out of different research centres, since they involve different research and different expertise. Science doesn't shift tacks that way; but politics does.

Thirdly, the revamped form of 'genetic' ID is rehash of past rhetorical arguments, and easy to debunk. Here's the debunk:

Anyone can research an intelligence hypothesis about the genetic mechanism at any time. Science cannot give or withhold that permission.

Such research would normally entail:

1) New observation and analysis, rather than simply philosophical argument, to reveal an insight about genetics that was not previously known, and which would give scientific credence to a the need for a new hypothesis;
2) Subsequently or concurrently, the development of a specific, exact and quantitative hypothesis, and the construction of a feasible experiment to falsify it; and
3) Peer review of the hypothesis and experimental design to ensure it was robust, followed by experiment to produce the results.

That research could be conducted right now. Nobody's stopping anyone from doing it.

However, at present, there's only conjecture. It's a shifted-tacks conjecture by philosophers rather than scientists, and not even good conjecture at that, since it's not triggering scientific discussion; only philosophical and political discussion.

Finally, suppose some hypothesis were substantiated by experiment that (say) in view of its complexity, genetic material did not originate on earth. (I have no idea how it would be, but suppose it was.)

Then it does not follow that the whole of evolutionary history was designed -- only a basic genetic mechanism. In fact, the fossil record and the study of extant species shows that evolution itself is adaptive but not terribly efficient biologically, or effective with respect to preservation of species. So all this research can produce is a single result: that genetic material did not originate on earth.

So then what?

Then science will start looking off-earth for a seed for life.

Which by the way, is already a competing scientific hypothesis, and already being investigated.

So, setting aside the now debunked claim of design intent in organs, the most ID can produce is a result already being considered: that genetic material did not originate on earth. And that's already being explored, and doesn't require a complexity argument in the first place. [E.g. http://www.newscientist.com...]

So the revamped form of ID is also useless and unsuccessful conjecture that has:

* No research investment in becoming an hypothesis;
* No chance of becoming a useful hypothesis;
* No chance of producing a viable experiment;
* No chance of producing a result not already being considered; and hence has attracted
* No interest from the science community.

In other words, it's the kind of pseudoscientific conjecture that looks fine to philosophers, politicians and theologians, but lacks the expertise recognisable by real, practicing, professional scientists.

ID is to science as Maggie Simpson with her toy steering-wheel is to car-driving.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 4:02:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 3:49:55 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
there's some intellectual deceit going on. ID began as an argument of 'design intent' from the appearance of certain organic functions
I meant of course, design inference, as per the website. Apologies.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 4:19:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 3:49:55 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/12/2015 3:15:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

It's not meant to be groundbreaking. It's just a well-constructed defense of ID's place in the scientific debate.

Dylan, firstly there is no scientific debate. A survey of scientific papers confirms that.

All science can really say is that evolution took place (and since evolution logically follows from well-observed, basic principles of reproduction and genetics, this should come as no surprise). It's not in the position to say whether there were viable evolutionarily pathways connecting evolutionary states (merely that we've found fossils along such paths does nothing to explain how they got there...leaps in biological evolution may have had to be overcome by an intelligence.


Secondly, there's some intellectual deceit going on. ID began as an argument of 'design intent' from the appearance of certain organic functions, and has since switched tacks to now claiming that the genetic mechanism itself was intelligently conceived. Those are different conjectures, and would normally come out of different research centres, since they involve different research and different expertise. Science doesn't shift tacks that way; but politics does.

How is that dishonest? It makes their arguments more difficult to refute by people like you, but where's the deceit? It's not any different than scientists changing their hypothesis to account for new evidence or arguments. It's simply a new approach to Intelligent Design Theory.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 4:20:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 3:48:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/12/2015 2:30:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://designinference.com...

Let's debate intelligent design. Lets go.

Haha, I wish I knew more about the subject. Maybe we can do one in the future after I've had time to read more about it.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 4:31:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 4:20:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2015 3:48:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/12/2015 2:30:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://designinference.com...

Let's debate intelligent design. Lets go.

Haha, I wish I knew more about the subject. Maybe we can do one in the future after I've had time to read more about it.

Debate me on 'Humans Share Common Ancestors with other Primates" then.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 4:49:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 4:19:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
All science can really say is that evolution took place (and since evolution logically follows from well-observed, basic principles of reproduction and genetics, this should come as no surprise). It's not in the position to say whether there were viable evolutionarily pathways connecting evolutionary states (merely that we've found fossils along such paths does nothing to explain how they got there...leaps in biological evolution may have had to be overcome by an intelligence.

You're right that you can always inject the supernatural into gaps. But then, suppose you do: if you want to argue for repeated intervention in the development of species, then what's the experiment? What's the prediction? What value does it add?

It's perfectly fine to do this as theology. Theology always takes what it can see, and tells a metaphysical story about it.

But science uses the natural to explore nature. So what's the next scientific step?

There isn't one, Dylan. The next step is theological, and science continues doing its thing, while the theologians do theirs.

But does theology need scientific permission to proceed?

No it does not.

Does science need theological objections to subside before it proceeds?

As the ghost of Galileo might say, hell no.

And has theology ever managed to debunk a single scientific theory?

No, it never has, and never will. Theology is purely interpretative, and its aim is not truth but influence. It's a rhetorical art; not an empirical discipline.

How is that dishonest?

Because the job of science is to develop a robust, natural understanding of nature: that's its whole job. So if your objections are philosophical, that's okay for a while -- provided they're based on new insights and not rehashing old observations. Else, scientists will ignore you.

Here's the thing, Dylan: scientists already know life and genetics are complex. They knew it before anyone else. When Biblical authors were saying you could fit all the animal species on earth in one goatherd-built boat, it was scientists who first realised there were far too many for that. :)

So these philosophical arguments aren't launched from any new insight. Moreover, they're not being supported by new observation, better analysis or improved experiment. They're marshaled by ideological prejudice, and launched from methodological ignorance, and the biggest difference between science and other disciplines is that when scientists get humiliated professionally, they shut up, and seek better facts.

A philosopher, a theologian, a lawyer or a politician just finds a better way to argue, and comes back arguing louder. And when scientists see that, they lose all regard and respect, because that's not science.

ID is now in something like its third incarnation. Same people, same ignorance, same objectives.

There is no scientific debate here, in part because scientists know what the rear end of a horse looks like, and have learned what to expect when it lifts its tail.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 4:56:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 4:19:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2015 3:49:55 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/12/2015 3:15:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

It's not meant to be groundbreaking. It's just a well-constructed defense of ID's place in the scientific debate.

Dylan, firstly there is no scientific debate. A survey of scientific papers confirms that.

All science can really say is that evolution took place (and since evolution logically follows from well-observed, basic principles of reproduction and genetics, this should come as no surprise). It's not in the position to say whether there were viable evolutionarily pathways connecting evolutionary states (merely that we've found fossils along such paths does nothing to explain how they got there...leaps in biological evolution may have had to be overcome by an intelligence.

But that makes intelligent design useless and impractical, though. At best, its a fruitless effort to point out whether a mechanism could have been intelligently designed, and at worst, it hinders scientific advancement.

The main problem ID suffers from is the fact that you cannot tell the difference between a system or phenomenon that simply seems improbable, but came about naturally, with a system or phenomenon that is intelligently designed. Of course, improbability has little to do with intelligent design as your winning the lottery has to do with the lottery being rigged and designed specifically so that you would be the winner. But without the ability to figure out whether something is natural or designed, how do we go about determining an explanation? We can either keep searching for an answer that utilizes a natural explanation, making ID useless, or we could give up on searching for a natural explanation and assume it was created intelligently, and hindering scientific advancement in the process.

Everything about ID is useless, impractical, or hindering actual scientific progress.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 5:28:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 4:31:59 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/12/2015 4:20:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2015 3:48:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/12/2015 2:30:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://designinference.com...

Let's debate intelligent design. Lets go.

Haha, I wish I knew more about the subject. Maybe we can do one in the future after I've had time to read more about it.

Debate me on 'Humans Share Common Ancestors with other Primates" then.

But I believe that?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 5:56:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 5:28:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2015 4:31:59 PM, Envisage wrote:
Debate me on 'Humans Share Common Ancestors with other Primates" then.
But I believe that?

Cool. Then, please let me draw your attention to two simple observation from geological and genetic records...

1) Life on earth is thought to have begun about four billion years ago; photosynthesis some three billion years ago; the first creature with a spinal column about five hundred million years ago; and the first primates about two million years ago.

Does this strike you as being an efficient way to populate a planet with life? Especially, advanced life?

2) Moreover, some 98% of the species that ever existed are now extinct (not so much due to human activity as ancient climate change and related extinction events.)

Does evolution then, seem an effective way to preserve specific species, given the long-term volatility of a planetary environment? Is there a high chance that any particular species is likely to survive?

If like me, you answer both these questions with 'no', then I invite you to reflect on where the supposed intelligence is in the origin of species: what problem was being solved, and what evidence to show it was solved efficiently, effectively or sustainably?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 6:13:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 5:28:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2015 4:31:59 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/12/2015 4:20:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2015 3:48:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/12/2015 2:30:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://designinference.com...

Let's debate intelligent design. Lets go.

Haha, I wish I knew more about the subject. Maybe we can do one in the future after I've had time to read more about it.

Debate me on 'Humans Share Common Ancestors with other Primates" then.

But I believe that?

If you believe in intelligent design, then you should have good reasons why you believe it already. Thus let us debate those reasons now, you shouldn't need additional affirmation for something you already believe.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 8:01:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 5:56:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/12/2015 5:28:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2015 4:31:59 PM, Envisage wrote:
Debate me on 'Humans Share Common Ancestors with other Primates" then.
But I believe that?

Cool. Then, please let me draw your attention to two simple observation from geological and genetic records...

1) Life on earth is thought to have begun about four billion years ago; photosynthesis some three billion years ago; the first creature with a spinal column about five hundred million years ago; and the first primates about two million years ago.

Not to sound like a jerk, but I think you meant to say that the genus homo appeared about 2 million years ago. Primates have been around for much longer.

Does this strike you as being an efficient way to populate a planet with life? Especially, advanced life?

2) Moreover, some 98% of the species that ever existed are now extinct (not so much due to human activity as ancient climate change and related extinction events.)

Does evolution then, seem an effective way to preserve specific species, given the long-term volatility of a planetary environment? Is there a high chance that any particular species is likely to survive?

If like me, you answer both these questions with 'no', then I invite you to reflect on where the supposed intelligence is in the origin of species: what problem was being solved, and what evidence to show it was solved efficiently, effectively or sustainably?
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 8:55:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 2:30:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://designinference.com...

Lol, c'mon Dyl. There's no such thing as a 'transitional form' except as arbitrarily defined. You'd have better luck arguing that the Giant's Causeway must be man-made. 'Explaining how this was produced without God is difficult, explaining it by simply injecting God, as always, is easy, therefore, God did it'. God is by definition the least likely explanation of anything.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 9:16:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 8:01:40 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
Not to sound like a jerk, but I think you meant to say that the genus homo appeared about 2 million years ago. Primates have been around for much longer.

Yes. the genus Homo -- our strand of primates -- is around 2.5 million years old. I started writing 'advanced primates' then messed up the edit. It's not a jerk act to fix facts, Hououin. Thanks, and apologies to members. :)

Further to the subject, Dylan, you can see from the timelines that biological complexity started slowly and accelerated, with simple life-forms taking aeons to get more complex, yet complex life-forms changing much faster as complexity combined.

Is that consistent with intervention by a strategic intelligence that knows what it's doing? Or is it more consistent with a series of small, tactical adaptations gradually combining and recombining to produce greater complexity?

As a hint, human technology also developed tactically by small adaptations, and we can see the same exponential curve in its development. The Stone Age lasted some 10,000 years; the Bronze Age perhaps 2,700; the Iron Age around 500; the Early Modern Age maybe 200; and the Modern Age 150 -- in which we've already been through two or three technological revolutions and now seem to be entering two more simultaneously.

Evolution has done similarly, but on a time-scale six orders of magnitude larger, spanning billions of years, rather than thousands. So if species are the product of intelligence, is it strategic or tactical? And is it thousands of times smarter than modern man, or a millionth as smart?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 9:21:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 8:55:00 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/12/2015 2:30:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
'Explaining how this was produced without God is difficult, explaining it by simply injecting God, as always, is easy, therefore, God did it'. God is by definition the least likely explanation of anything.

How did you arrive at that bizarre conclusion?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 9:26:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 9:16:21 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
The Stone Age lasted some 10,000 years
Sorry -- about 10,000 years from records of agriculture, and hence the beginning of what we now think of as civilisation. The Stone Age itself lasted millions of years.

Distracted Ruv today. :p
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 9:35:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 9:21:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2015 8:55:00 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/12/2015 2:30:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
'Explaining how this was produced without God is difficult, explaining it by simply injecting God, as always, is easy, therefore, God did it'. God is by definition the least likely explanation of anything.

How did you arrive at that bizarre conclusion?

It's the greatest possible inference from any piece of evidence, isn't it?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 11:35:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 9:35:49 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/12/2015 9:21:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2015 8:55:00 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/12/2015 2:30:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
'Explaining how this was produced without God is difficult, explaining it by simply injecting God, as always, is easy, therefore, God did it'. God is by definition the least likely explanation of anything.

How did you arrive at that bizarre conclusion?

It's the greatest possible inference from any piece of evidence, isn't it?

So your position is essentially that since God is the most complex thing imaginable, that God is by definition the least likely explanation. This relies on the assumption that all explanations are equally able to account for the facts of nature, so that the more grand an explanation the less likely it is true, given that all explanations are equally likely on an a priori basis. But this just makes Occam's Razor axiomatic, when it is really only meant as a general rule of thumb. It's true that God is the greatest predicate, but that does not mean an explanation that calls upon God is the most fantastical or implausible. A sufficient explanation is more plausible than an insufficient one, no matter how "grand" you find it. And for that matter, I have no idea why you regard God as the most extravagant explanation to begin with. God is perhaps the simplest explanation considering that all explanation ends, and begins, with God, including God's own explanation. A one word explanation is hardly "complex".
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 11:37:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 3:48:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/12/2015 2:30:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://designinference.com...

Let's debate intelligent design. Lets go.

Wanna debate "Darwinian Naturalism is scientifically established" ?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 12:10:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 11:37:51 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2015 3:48:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/12/2015 2:30:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://designinference.com...

Let's debate intelligent design. Lets go.

Wanna debate "Darwinian Naturalism is scientifically established" ?

What the hell is darwinian naturalism?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 12:12:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 12:10:00 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/13/2015 11:37:51 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2015 3:48:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/12/2015 2:30:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://designinference.com...

Let's debate intelligent design. Lets go.

Wanna debate "Darwinian Naturalism is scientifically established" ?

What the hell is darwinian naturalism?

The idea that the diversity of life on earth can be explained through unguided (materially mechanistic) evolutionary processes alone.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 12:24:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 12:12:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/13/2015 12:10:00 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/13/2015 11:37:51 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2015 3:48:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/12/2015 2:30:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://designinference.com...

Let's debate intelligent design. Lets go.

Wanna debate "Darwinian Naturalism is scientifically established" ?

What the hell is darwinian naturalism?

The idea that the diversity of life on earth can be explained through unguided (materially mechanistic) evolutionary processes alone.

Okay. So what does materially mechanistic mean?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 12:27:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 12:24:18 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/13/2015 12:12:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/13/2015 12:10:00 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/13/2015 11:37:51 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2015 3:48:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/12/2015 2:30:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://designinference.com...

Let's debate intelligent design. Lets go.

Wanna debate "Darwinian Naturalism is scientifically established" ?

What the hell is darwinian naturalism?

The idea that the diversity of life on earth can be explained through unguided (materially mechanistic) evolutionary processes alone.

Okay. So what does materially mechanistic mean?

A closed, recursive system in which the laws of physics act on matter to produce a state, and are then applied to the resulting state to produce the next state, and so on and so forth.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 12:30:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 12:27:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/13/2015 12:24:18 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/13/2015 12:12:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/13/2015 12:10:00 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/13/2015 11:37:51 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2015 3:48:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/12/2015 2:30:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://designinference.com...

Let's debate intelligent design. Lets go.

Wanna debate "Darwinian Naturalism is scientifically established" ?

What the hell is darwinian naturalism?

The idea that the diversity of life on earth can be explained through unguided (materially mechanistic) evolutionary processes alone.

Okay. So what does materially mechanistic mean?

A closed, recursive system in which the laws of physics act on matter to produce a state, and are then applied to the resulting state to produce the next state, and so on and so forth.

Okay. May I ask why youre not taking his offer to debate intelligent design?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 12:34:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 12:30:33 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/13/2015 12:27:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/13/2015 12:24:18 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/13/2015 12:12:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/13/2015 12:10:00 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/13/2015 11:37:51 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2015 3:48:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/12/2015 2:30:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://designinference.com...

Let's debate intelligent design. Lets go.

Wanna debate "Darwinian Naturalism is scientifically established" ?

What the hell is darwinian naturalism?

The idea that the diversity of life on earth can be explained through unguided (materially mechanistic) evolutionary processes alone.

Okay. So what does materially mechanistic mean?

A closed, recursive system in which the laws of physics act on matter to produce a state, and are then applied to the resulting state to produce the next state, and so on and so forth.

Okay. May I ask why youre not taking his offer to debate intelligent design?

As I said, I haven't read much about it (the specific arguments for intelligent design). However, I'm confident that I can refute any arguments to the effect that Darwinian Naturalism has been scientifically established.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 12:46:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 12:34:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/13/2015 12:30:33 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/13/2015 12:27:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/13/2015 12:24:18 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/13/2015 12:12:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/13/2015 12:10:00 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/13/2015 11:37:51 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2015 3:48:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/12/2015 2:30:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://designinference.com...

Let's debate intelligent design. Lets go.

Wanna debate "Darwinian Naturalism is scientifically established" ?

What the hell is darwinian naturalism?

The idea that the diversity of life on earth can be explained through unguided (materially mechanistic) evolutionary processes alone.

Okay. So what does materially mechanistic mean?

A closed, recursive system in which the laws of physics act on matter to produce a state, and are then applied to the resulting state to produce the next state, and so on and so forth.

Okay. May I ask why youre not taking his offer to debate intelligent design?

As I said, I haven't read much about it (the specific arguments for intelligent design). However, I'm confident that I can refute any arguments to the effect that Darwinian Naturalism has been scientifically established.

Okay.