Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
|
 johnm214
 
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
|
I see how I should have been clearer and how the comment by itself could be insulting. I was trying to say your comments about your life and the life of others being lesser than your own were irrelevant. I appologize if this was unclear or for any offense it caused.
|
 Shirakawasuna
Stranger
Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Maybe you missed this part:
If someone wants me to respond to a point several criteria should be met, considering I've mentioned several times my time is limited by other priorities:
1) Be brief.
No. I'll wait for you to come up with good responses. This topic requires full explanations for good-faith debate, particularly when one party (hint hint) will not answer the most basic of questions and points. The same points get repeated ad nauseum solely because you continue to do everything *but* address the pertinent questions.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:
zouden said:
>Conversely, if you showed one thing that was designed you have given evidence for an unknown designer.
Of course. But since an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, no one could claim a lack of evidence of design as a falsification of the hypothesis.
I do not understand that statement. What "absence of evidence"?
I'm simply pointing out that your statement ("Conversely...") can't be used to falsify ID. That is, even though I like to say we haven't found any evidence of design, that's not a falsification of ID.
Quote:
Quote:
zouden said:
>That would be one way, yes, but not the only way.
Well, I can't think of any other ways. To me it's quite clear: a hypothesis that states that an Unknown Designer played some role in the design of the universe can only be disproved by showing that he didn't, or couldn't have. But since the Unknown Designer is, well, unknown, then we don't know his motives or his limitations. This would make it very difficult, even impossible, to disprove his influence, don't you agree?
In a broader sense, yes. But that's not what we're talking about (or at least I'm not). I have mentioned this before but there are folks who are FLE fans. Front Loaded Evolution. How the hell you disprove that is beyond me. What I am talking about is obvious design by an intelligent agent. Evidently, this one makes motors far beyond our current capabilities.
Quote:
zouden said:
So the next question is: does ID fall into this category, or is it different kind of hypothesis?
Obviously from my reply immediately above, intelligent design is different.
I had to look FLE up. It's the idea that all the genetic information was pre-loaded (presumably by God) and just activated later in a process that appears to be like evolution. But the problem is that inactivated genes aren't subject to selection, so lethal mutations would accumulate. Also, since we've now sequenced the genome of so many organisms, it's quite clear that they don't have the same DNA as us. I think the FLE idea is pretty much falsified. It's much easier to falsify than the form of ID that I'm thinking of, because it makes specific claims (that the genetic information is all pre-loaded) which we can, and have, disproven.
So does ID make specific claims that can be disproven? Wayyy back at the start of all this, you quoted Dembski as saying that ID claims silicon-based lifeforms don't exist. Which is a ridiculous thing to say, because that's quite obviously not a necessary requirement for ID.
Are there any others? Any claims that are required by ID, yet falsifiable? Because if there is one, then I'd be satisfied. My impression of ID is that it makes no required, falsifiable claims. Perhaps I have a different idea of ID to you.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
So does ID make specific claims that can be disproven? Wayyy back at the start of all this, you quoted Dembski as saying that ID claims silicon-based lifeforms don't exist. Which is a ridiculous thing to say, because that's quite obviously not a necessary requirement for ID.
Are there any others? Any claims that are required by ID, yet falsifiable? Because if there is one, then I'd be satisfied. My impression of ID is that it makes no required, falsifiable claims. Perhaps I have a different idea of ID to you.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
| |
|
|
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Mr. Middle, Diploid
6,331 topic views. 1 members, 9 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
| | |
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
