|
 Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
ID is not subject to physicality in the same way as material objects; ID deals in design, an attribute of material objects.
The prediction of ID is that an object or event that does not exist either by natural law or chance will be the result of an intelligent agent.
I'm not sure what you mean by "How is the flagellumcharecter, origin, or source predicted byI.D?" ID does not predict that way and neither does evolution. You cannot say this species will turn into that species. Neither ID nor evolution works that way. You can look at pre-existing organisms and speculate if they were related. In the same way, you can look at a pre-existing or existing organism and test it for design.
So I.D. predicts that things that aren't natural are supernaturally designed? That seems obvious and correct by definition.
If you can't help the long posts, I'll just snip the rest and answer one comment/question.
No, that is incorrect. The filter is not just used on biological artifacts. It can also be used on other artifacts. If a series of radio waves were to come in with some specified pattern from a distant galaxy, the EF could determine if they were from an intelligent agent. You could also run any artifact, manmade or not, and the EF would assign intelligent agency if the artifact wasn't produced by natural law or chance.
Next question?
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
|
How is that not correct? You challenged nothing I stated.
I.D. doesn't actually predict any observable phenomena. It is not at all scientific because of this and could never be demonstrated false because it never actually holds anything, observable, to be true as a consequence of itself.
I don't know what this explanatory filter has to do with anything, but you can't show that intelligent design actually means anything. It's just some vague statement that presumes supernatural causes to natural things on very questionable grounds.
Quote:
This is an assembly evolution cannot perform. Why? Because according to evolution each part would have appeared individually through natural selection; evolution is a gradual process requiring many years. And according to evolution no part would survive without contributing to the survival of the bacteria. Therefore, a purely natural process could not have built this motor. Parts cannot wait around for other parts to appear while they sit there and do nothing.
Why would the parts have to appear all at once? of the relativly macroscopic parts, all I know of are found in other structures and could have been derived from these quite easily it would seem superficially. Andy molecular differences could come from specialization over many generalizations.
What exactly are you claiming had to show up all at once or wouldn't have contributed to the fitness of the cell if not in a working flagellum or similar structure that preceded it?
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
How is that not correct? You challenged nothing I stated.
I.D. doesn't actually predict any observable phenomena. It is not at all scientific because of this and could never be demonstrated false because it never actually holds anything, observable, to be true as a consequence of itself.
[snip]
I showed how the filter works with artifacts that are not supernatural. That was your claim. I disproved it.
I think you're hung up on predictability and using it in only one way. I have stated repeatedly that ID predicts a natural explanation for the flagellum will never be found. That is certainly a prediction.
It seems like you want ID to predict an eclipse or something. That isn't how it works.
You do realize a prediction and a falsification aren't exactly the same thing but only related to each other, don't you? If a theory submits to falsification or makes risky predictions it is science.
Another thing I think is going on here is you've heard (you're not the only one) that ID isn't falsifiable. Therefore, everything I write must be incorrect somehow and you're trying to find it. Otherwise we would have found common ground long before now. This may be a new concept to most here but it isn't rocket science.
--------------------
|
 zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
|
Oh god... what a long night 
Ermm... regarding my post about the word "therefore", you said:
Quote:
Furthermore, ID makes a prediction that a natural cause will never be found for the flagellum. That is a VERY risky prediction. It is obviously falsifiable! Therefore, ID is falsifiable.
I just can't think of any way that falsifying that prediction (ie, finding a natural cause) could disprove ID. In Dembski's words, "intelligent causes can mimic law and chance, thereby rendering their actions indistinguishable from these unintelligent causes." This means that finding a natural cause does nothing to disprove ID.
And I think this is quite clear if you think about other predictions that ID has made - predictions which we know to be false. We've been focusing on the flagella because science lacks a good explanation at the moment. But what about the original irreducible complexity example, the eye? We know a lot more about the eye and we can see a clear evolutionary path from lower animals to higher ones, so you'd be pretty hard pressed to argue the case for design there. But people did argue that case (and probably still do). So why isn't ID falsified already? I think the answer is obvious: falsifying that prediction does nothing to falsify ID.
--------------------
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
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Oh god... what a long night
Ermm... regarding my post about the word "therefore", you said:
Quote:
Furthermore, ID makes a prediction that a natural cause will never be found for the flagellum. That is a VERY risky prediction. It is obviously falsifiable! Therefore, ID is falsifiable.
I just can't think of any way that falsifying that prediction (ie, finding a natural cause) could disprove ID. In Dembski's words, "intelligent causes can mimic law and chance, thereby rendering their actions indistinguishable from these unintelligent causes." This means that finding a natural cause does nothing to disprove ID.
You seem hung up on that point. Dembski is referring to false negatives at that point, not false positives. That--is the difference.
Can you explain what a false negative and a false positive is? Use an example for each.
Quote:
zouden said:
And I think this is quite clear if you think about other predictions that ID has made - predictions which we know to be false. We've been focusing on the flagella because science lacks a good explanation at the moment. But what about the original irreducible complexity example, the eye? We know a lot more about the eye and we can see a clear evolutionary path from lower animals to higher ones, so you'd be pretty hard pressed to argue the case for design there. But people did argue that case (and probably still do). So why isn't ID falsified already? I think the answer is obvious: falsifying that prediction does nothing to falsify ID.
These are claims without evidence or reasoning. They are mere statements without anything to back them up. PLUS, they are yet another example of the Argument by Question Diploid lists in Philosophical fallacies. I cannot discuss some of them at length because they are outside my knowledge, and probably outside of yours. I wouldn't know if they were right or wrong.
Example:
True or False?
GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to "cut" a molecule called cGMP (a chemical of both GDP and GTP).
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
|
I don't see how G-protein-coupled-receptor signalling pathways has anything to do with what we are talking about...
Quote:
Dembski is referring to false negatives at that point, not false positives. That--is the difference.
Can you explain what a false negative and a false positive is? Use an example for each.
Yes, I know he is talking about false negatives. That's what I'm talking about too.
False positive: incorrectly identifying something as positive. Eg, saying something was designed when it isn't. Dembski claims that the explanatory filter doesn't suffer from this problem - he says it'll always detect design if there is design. I disagree with him, but that's a debate for a different thread. I am not interested in false positives.
False negative: incorrectly identifying something as negative, eg, "the flagella was not designed" could be a false negative, if it actually was designed. Dembski is happy to admit that false negatives are an issue in ID. And I agree with him. He even, quite correctly, states that all negatives could be false ones. This means ID can never be falsified, a fact I'm sure he's aware of.
--------------------
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
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
I don't see how G-protein-coupled-receptor signalling pathways has anything to do with what we are talking about...
It's part of Behe's argument for irreducible complexity for vision, i.e. the eye.
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
Dembski is referring to false negatives at that point, not false positives. That--is the difference.
Can you explain what a false negative and a false positive is? Use an example for each.
Yes, I know he is talking about false negatives. That's what I'm talking about too.
False positive: incorrectly identifying something as positive. Eg, saying something was designed when it isn't. Dembski claims that the explanatory filter doesn't suffer from this problem - he says it'll always detect design if there is design. I disagree with him, but that's a debate for a different thread. I am not interested in false positives.
False negative: incorrectly identifying something as negative, eg, "the flagella was not designed" could be a false negative, if it actually was designed. Dembski is happy to admit that false negatives are an issue in ID. And I agree with him. He even, quite correctly, states that all negatives could be false ones. This means ID can never be falsified, a fact I'm sure he's aware of.
I see you left out the examples. If the explanatory filter assigns intelligent causation to an artifact or an event and either turns out to be naturally caused, the explanatory filter is falsified and broken. The flagellum is such a case and it hasn't been shown to be naturally caused.
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:
johnm214 said:
How is that not correct? You challenged nothing I stated.
I.D. doesn't actually predict any observable phenomena. It is not at all scientific because of this and could never be demonstrated false because it never actually holds anything, observable, to be true as a consequence of itself.
[snip]
I showed how the filter works with artifacts that are not supernatural. That was your claim. I disproved it.
I think you're hung up on predictability and using it in only one way. I have stated repeatedly that ID predicts a natural explanation for the flagellum will never be found. That is certainly a prediction.
It seems like you want ID to predict an eclipse or something. That isn't how it works.
You do realize a prediction and a falsification aren't exactly the same thing but only related to each other, don't you? If a theory submits to falsification or makes risky predictions it is science.
Another thing I think is going on here is you've heard (you're not the only one) that ID isn't falsifiable. Therefore, everything I write must be incorrect somehow and you're trying to find it. Otherwise we would have found common ground long before now. This may be a new concept to most here but it isn't rocket science.
I'm using predictability in only one way? What way am I not using it in?
Quote:
"I have stated repeatedly that ID predicts a natural explanation for the flagellum will never be found. That is certainly a prediction."
Yeah, you keep saying it and I keep asking you to demonstrate that it does that. You've never stated what I.D. is such that your assertion is true.
I've asked this many times How does ID predict anything about the flagellum? Stop just claiming it, demonstrate it.
Quote:
Another thing I think is going on here is you've heard (you're not the only one) that ID isn't falsifiable. Therefore, everything I write must be incorrect somehow and you're trying to find it. Otherwise we would have found common ground long before now. This may be a new concept to most here but it isn't rocket science.
Whatever I heard isn't relevant.
I'm saying I don't see how ID has anything to say about the world at all- it makes no predictions that can be measured. Since this appears true it can never be falsified as it never requires any particular observation to maintain its plausibility.
I don't know how you seem to be going back on forth on this. You've never stated what ID is such that it predicts something about the falgellum and never explained how ID requires anything observable in the world.
What is the hangup here? Why do you keep repeating irrelevancies like "ID predicts such and such about the flagellum" when that isn't the issue? I don't care what you say, I want you to lay out how what you are saying is true rather than read again and again your conclusory summations of the 'theory'.
What is ID and show how it predicts any observable phenomena or could ever be inconsistant with the observable world because its holdings are false. Do it. Lets drop the conclusory language- I already know what you think. The discussion is over whether that is correct.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
You are saying:
My science book says there will be an solar eclipse on July 22, 2009 at Japan's Ryukyu Islands.
My science books says mixing vinegar and baking soda will create carbon dioxide.
Those are predictions.
What does intelligent design predict?
----------------------------
That is the most childish idea of science I have ever heard.
Let me ask a question.
What will the species of man look like 250,000 years from now?
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
|
No, where have I said that?
I don't know what distinction you are drawing between those hypothesis and any other since you've never explained what your talking about.
Its not like your offering stuff here and I'm saying "that's not the right kind of observable phenomena". Your saying nothing and haven't even defined ID to mean anything such that it would allow someone to test it.
I don't know why you keep dodging this question if you can answer it. What is ID and show that it actually claims some observable phenomena as a necessary element of it being correct.
So far as you've shown, there are no actual observable consequences to I.D., let alone any that could be investigated and determined to exist or not thereby supporting or rejecting ID.
Why you claim I'm unfairly pigeon holling "science" into any particular corner of the world when you've never even offered any description of ID that allows it to be tested is beyond me. If ID is being unfairly cast aside then why don't you demonstrate its true rather than, again, decreeing that it is so.
Like I said, I understand your claims- demonstrate that they are true.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
Quote:
What is ID and show that it actually claims some observable phenomena as neccesary.
What do you mean by "observable phenomena"?
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
|
Use a dictionary man, I'm not trying to be tricky here.
something that happens that we can detect.
quantized electrons= observable
fishe talking to each other and then rolling dice in heaven to determine the energy level of electrons= not observable.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
ID predicts this is designed:
Would that count?
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
|
If you can show that ID does predict that that the picture's subject is designed, I would think that would be fine- then the same basic statement that concluded the picture was designed could be tested for accuracy.
Basically I've not seen a definition of what ID holds sufficient to allow anyone to actually determine that it does in fact say that picture was designed, nor a definition sufficient enough that would allow it's claims, in general, to be tested for accuracy.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor
|
|
30 some-odd pages and nary a clear response should be your answer.
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
30 some-odd pages and nary a clear response should be your answer.
Yes, your threads aren't nearly as long because as soon as someone beats your ass, you run away.
John and I are attempting a solution here, civilly. Why don't you follow suit?
I'm still waiting for your answer to your last embarrassing thread on intelligent design. At least be a man and concede defeat.
--------------------
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
If you can show that ID does predict that that the picture's subject is designed, I would think that would be fine- then the same basic statement that concluded the picture was designed could be tested for accuracy.
Great. Let me try it.
I use the explanatory filter, the main tool of ID, the same way I use a microscope.
When I find a mushroom, I make a spore print and then look at the spores under the microscope. Many times that will tell me if what I predicted about the identity of the mushroom is correct.
In the exact same way I look at an artifact that appears designed and look at it under the explanatory filter. If it cannot have been produced by natural law or chance, it was designed. I hypothesize design based on appearances and test it with the filter.
--------------------
|
Mufungo
Coming at ya
Registered: 04/03/07
Posts: 2,556
Loc: Knowhere
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:
johnm214 said:
If you can show that ID does predict that that the picture's subject is designed, I would think that would be fine- then the same basic statement that concluded the picture was designed could be tested for accuracy.
Great. Let me try it.
I use the explanatory filter, the main tool of ID, the same way I use a microscope.
When I find a mushroom, I make a spore print and then look at the spores under the microscope. Many times that will tell me if what I predicted about the identity of the mushroom is correct.
In the exact same way I look at an artifact that appears designed and look at it under the explanatory filter. If it cannot have been produced by natural law or chance, it was designed. I hypothesize design based on appearances and test it with the filter.
The analogy between microscope and EF doesn't hold up. The accuracy and precision of a microscope can be analysed and scrutinised with converging and diverging evidence. Thereby establishing the reliability and validity of the instrument. Can the same be said for the EF? Is there any empirical evidence showing the reliability or validity of the EF? How can we be sure that the EF is the appropriate "tool" for deciding whether something was designed or not?
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
All analogies are weak at some point. That's what makes them analogies.
Quote:
Is there any empirical evidence showing the reliability or validity of the EF?
This is the nub, or crux, of the situation.
And the answer is, yes, we can. How?
By running other designs through the filter to see if they show up undesigned.
A fiendish mad scientist bent on destroying ID could set up this experiment:
Item X is actually a product of chance but it appears designed. He hands it over to Dembski and says, "Run it through your blasted filter. I want to know if it was designed." Dembski runs it through and states unequivocally, "This was designed!" Dembski is wrong and the filter is broken. Dembski quits Baylor University and goes back to Amway.
The problem with that scenario is that no item has tested that way yet. The filter has worked 1000% of the time. If it was a product of chance it never made it past that net.
Nothing has escaped the net.
Google it.
--------------------
|
Mufungo
Coming at ya
Registered: 04/03/07
Posts: 2,556
Loc: Knowhere
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
All analogies are weak at some point. That's what makes them analogies.
Quote:
Is there any empirical evidence showing the reliability or validity of the EF?
This is the nub, or crux, of the situation.
And the answer is, yes, we can. How?
By running other designs through the filter to see if they show up undesigned.
A fiendish mad scientist bent on destroying ID could set up this experiment:
Item X is actually a product of chance but it appears designed. He hands it over to Dembski and says, "Run it through your blasted filter. I want to know if it was designed." Dembski runs it through and states unequivocally, "This was designed!" Dembski is wrong and the filter is broken. Dembski quits Baylor University and goes back to Amway.
The problem with that scenario is that no item has tested that way yet. The filter has worked 1000% of the time. If it was a product of chance it never made it past that net.
Nothing has escaped the net.
Google it.
Thanks for the laugh and nice dodge. But seriously, that's nonsense. Mad scientist? You weren't serious with that answer I hope.
Not speaking in hypotheticals, how/where/when and by who has the reliability and/or validity of the EF actually been tested?
Why should we use the EF rather than some other tool to decide on whether something is designed or not?
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Shop for: 
Edit 
Reply 
