View Poll Results: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

Voters
69. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    3 4.35%
  • no

    66 95.65%
Page 12 of 21 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 206

Thread: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

  1. #111
    Guru
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,873

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon
    I am not sure if you have missed my point or if I have missed yours.
    But these comments don't seem connected to what I meant.

    I am trying to say that if there's not even a hypothetical test for a hypothesis that could conceivable show that the hypothesis is incorrect, then the hypothesis is not a scientific one.
    And I was saying that what amounts to a conceivable test rests largely on the sorts of assumptions we accept as valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon
    Given that God could be the Ultimate Trickster and hide/delete all evidence of his existence, there is not a possible test which could disprove the existence of God. At best a lack of corroboration would only mean that God didn't want us to find w/e we were looking for because of His own inscrutable reasons.
    I guess my point was whether this really could, or should, be given. I don't know of very many people who are proposing that kind of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon
    I don't see gravity as being an analog for that at all. Gravity and various other things are not capable of the same reality-bending as the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent God.
    Not an exact analog, no. It was merely a device to point out that we can, and do, test meta-properties. We might not be able to see or directly detect God (if one exists), but we might well be able to detect some effect that can only, or best, be explained by reference to some special entity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon
    I am not trying argue about our limits of perception and deduction, rather I am concerned about the nebulous ineffability of "God".
    Well, just what makes God nebulous and ineffable if not our own limits? I can hear the obvious reply: "Well, how about the nebulous ineffability of God?". But it has to be acknowledged that if our powers of perception and deduction were strong enough, that wouldn't matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon
    It doesn't seem that a numinous ineffability with omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence can be very modeled very well by human minds.
    First, it should be pointed out that this was a set of properties concocted by Anselm, a monk and later Archbishop who probably didn't have access to the entire corpus of the JudeoChristian tradition or scripture at the time he formulated the ontological argument. He was just sitting around thinking about what would be God, in his opinion. Unfortunately, his idea gained extraordinary influence on western thought, thanks to a variety of accidents of history.

    I rather prefer, if we're going to talk about God, to either consider the Gods directly experienced by mystics and prophets, or possibly the thing designated by a particular version of the cosmological argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon
    It doesn't seem that it would be necessarily true that what is true for the minds we're familiar with, our own, would need to be true for a "mind" which is essentially limitless in scope.
    Well...I mostly agree, but I would propose a couple of caveats, and I think those make some difference. First, we have to mean something reasonably definite when we use the term "mind." We're talking about something that has percepts, thinks thoughts (however exalted), and has motives (however inscrutable to us). Second, whether we could fathom those or other aspects of such a mind is a different question from whether we could detect their existence. Motives that are accompanied by actions leave a signature in all but a single kind of case.

    Now God might have a radically different nature, as you say. But if it's radical enough, does it really have a mind? Not in the way in which we mean the term.

  2. #112
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    So you skip to the summary
    No one is going to read your entire long document, and you know that fully well. The only reason you posted it at all was so you could say "read the document lol" instead of actually thinking about the topic and discussing it.

    And if skipping to the conclusion gives me the OPPOSITE conclusion of this guy's point, then it sounds like he's just a piss-poor writer. Or, more likely, you just failed to understand what he said.

    without understanding the context, and make the wrong judgement. Serves me right for trying.
    It seems that in every single paragraph, the author cites the astronomically-high probabilities other people have estimated, puts them in their proper context, and then explains why they are either wrong, irrelevant, or taken out of context. Nowhere in this essay do I see anything remotely resembling the author agreeing with you that life was too improbable to form by chance...quite the opposite. But maybe I'm missing it, so please cite a paragraph or two (not 500 of them) from this document that support your point.

    Oh is this the accusation portion of the discussion already? It sounds to me like you don't want to discuss the math.
    The math is quite simple. The probability that life forms in a universe in which observers exist to contemplate it is 1. By definition. No life in the universe, no observers.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 04-27-12 at 09:40 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #113
    Death2Globalists Matt Foley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ExecuteTheTraitors
    Last Seen
    11-24-12 @ 12:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,574

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    These theories are subject to being falsified.
    No they're not.

  4. #114
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The math is quite simple. The probability that life forms in a universe in which observers exist to contemplate it is 1. By definition. No life in the universe, no observers.
    Sure it's not 4... how about pi?

    Funny stuff dude...
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  5. #115
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Sure it's not 4... how about pi?

    Funny stuff dude...
    As I suspected. Carry on then.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #116
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    As I suspected. Carry on then.
    You suspect nothing... you don't know what you're talking about so I'm ridiculing you.

    Educate yourself... look up Hoyle's work on life probability. Just a side note, it's not 1.

    As stated by Drs. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, “the trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 20) 2000 = 10 40,000, which is an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.“3 This is about the same chance as throwing an uninterrupted sequence of 50,000 sixes with a pair of dice.
    Have fun with your 1.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  7. #117
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    that's a very stupid thing to say.

    because we don't fully understand gravity, that means we have no understanding of anything whatsoever?

    that's a very convenient theory for you, as it allows you to disregard any science you don't like.
    Just when I thought we had a convergence of minds, LOL.

  8. #118
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    Just when I thought we had a convergence of minds, LOL.
    we both know how to use a chainsaw. that's probably as good as it gets.

  9. #119
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    You suspect nothing... you don't know what you're talking about so I'm ridiculing you.

    Educate yourself... look up Hoyle's work on life probability. Just a side note, it's not 1.
    That quote is talking about something completely different, and ignores the "givens" which change the probability. For example, what's the probability of rolling a 6 on a 6-sided die? 1/6. What's the probability of rolling on a 6 on a 6-sided die GIVEN that you roll an even number? 1/3. The additional information changes the probability.

    It's the same thing for the universe and life. What's the probability that self-replicating entities form in the universe? Arguably very low. What's the probability that self-replicating entities form in the universe, GIVEN that the universe is home to conscious forms of life who observe it? 100%. The additional information changes the probability.

    Also, I love how the website which YOU CITED specifically refutes Hoyle...by name.

    Quote Originally Posted by Your own source
    Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe

    The most commonly cited source for statistical impossibility of the origin of life comes from another odd book, Evolution From Space, written by Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe (Dent, 1981; immediately reprinted by Simon & Schuster that same year, under the title Evolution From Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism). The statistic 10^40,000 is calculated on p. 24 (Hoyle repeats the exact same argument on pp. 16-17 of The Intelligent Universe (1983)). A twenty-amino-acid polypeptide must chain in precisely the right order for it to fit the corresponding enzyme. Although Hoyle does not state it, this would entail that there must have been a minimum specificity, of one specific possibility, for the first enzymic life, of 10^20, a value to which Hoyle himself says "by itself, this small probability could be faced" (and this statistic even fails to account for that fact that any number of "first enzymic organisms" are possible, and not just one as his calculation assumes). Hoyle then goes on: "the trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes," (in "the whole of biology," p. 23), "and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)^2000 = 10^40,000..."

    There are three flaws in this conclusion: he assumes (1) that natural selection is equivalent to random shuffling, (2) that all two thousand enzymes, all the enzymes used in the whole of biology, had to be hit upon at once in one giant pull of the cosmic slot machine, and (3) that life began requiring complex enzymes working in concert. As for (1), I address this mistaken idea throughout my critique of Foster. To put it in a nutshell, natural selection is not random, but selective, a distinction that is not trivial (a point made by Sagan above). As for (2), Hoyle leads his readers to believe that every living organism requires or uses all two thousand enzymes, but he leaves himself an out, for when he claims this, he uses the words "for the most part" (p. 23). In other words, some life, probably the simplest, uses less. Since biologists consider all present life to be far more advanced than early life, even if all presently living organisms required two thousand enzymes it would not follow that the first life did. It almost certainly did not. As for this point and (3), see Addenda C. For a good introduction, with numerous recommended readings, on the current state of the science of biochemical origins, see Massimo Pigliucci's "Where Do We Come From?" in the Skeptical Inquirer (September/October 1999)
    Have fun with your 1.
    News flash: I'm a lot smarter than you. And since you cannot seem to grasp basic principles of logic and statistics (whether because you intentionally want to remain ignorant or because you simply don't have the brainpower for it), I see no reason to continue this discussion.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 04-27-12 at 10:10 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #120
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,798

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    You suspect nothing... you don't know what you're talking about so I'm ridiculing you.

    Educate yourself... look up Hoyle's work on life probability. Just a side note, it's not 1.



    Have fun with your 1.
    You do know Hoyle and Wickramsinghe are panspermists, not creationists, right?
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

Page 12 of 21 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •