Uses of logical arguments in debate

Science

(Bill Cole) #101

It is clearly evidence as there are two real choices to explain what we are observing. There was intelligence behind the creation of the universe and diversity of life or there is not and we are result of a lucky accident.

On what basis do you reject the hypothesis that intelligence was behind the creation of what we are observing?


(Mikkel R.) #102

It seems to me there are other options than design and blind chance. There could be some sort of physical law or force which makes the universe exist, or take the form it does. Just saying it’s not a dichotomy, not that I claim to know why things are the way they are.

On what basis do you reject the hypothesis that intelligence was behind the creation of what we are observing?

The time to believe a hypothesis is when there is lots of good evidence for it. I don’t know what, if anything, is “behind” what we are observing (assuming you mean the universe), so I don’t make any conclusions.


(Guy Coe) #103

Read more carefully next time.


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #104

His parents?


(Bill Cole) #105

The physical forces that appear to be finely tuned are evidence in them selves. Are they the result of design or chance?

Over the last 4 years in these discussions a lot of circumstantial evidence for a created universe has surfaced.
-The cell as a system based on sequences that can be accurately duplicated.
-The unfolding of the diversity of life and the incredible innovations like mind, energy management, sight, coordinated mobility and flight
-The origin of the 4 forces and the precision of those forces
-The basic structure of all matter based on particles that are well matched
-The ability of a single cell to turn into a human and the process that has emerged
-The evidence of consciousness
-The emergence of conscious agents that can observe the universe

This evidence points to a conscious intelligent creator in my opinion.


(Dale Cutler) #106

Stephen Hawking has been there, thought that. In one place he essentially says that the law of gravity created the universe. The law of gravity… without anything there for it to have an effect on.


(Ann Gauger) #107

@T_aquaticus This is a seriously good and important question. Suppose we suddenly a way to identify a feature of the cell that was intelligently designed (and I don’t mean irreducible complexity).

What use would it be? Well I know what I would do. But of course, I can’t predict very far out, because the course of the research would depend on what I find. Basically, I would look for other features with the same signal and see if there was a commonality or connectedness between them . My expectation would be one of design.


(John Dalton) #108

Just a thought, why wouldn’t such features be widespread and obviously apparent? A single watch surely has dozens of such features.


(John Harshman) #109

Back up a bit. How would you find such a way?


(Ann Gauger) #110

@John_Harshman
Suppose I identified a feature for metabolism that deserved further study, like autocatalysis., and found examples that appeared to be universal. What would you do? I know you would not assume Design. How would you explain such autocatalysis without resort to hypotheticals?


(John Harshman) #111

I would ask you what the heck you were talking about and what it had to do with intelligent design.


(Mikkel R.) #112

Then he appears to have been saying the same things some Christians do, that God acted on nothing at all, and then the universe just appeared. If there’s nothing to act upon, why should God, or gravity, be able to turn it into a universe?

So if God can act on nothing and turn it into the universe, if God can “create a universe from nothing”, then it must be possible for some things to turn nothing into the universe.

But if it is possible for some things to turn nothing into the universe, why could that not be one of the powers of gravity?

It seems to me that if you find gravity creating the universe from nothing absurd, then you must find God creating the universe from nothing equally absurd. Either way, you end up with the universe being created by something acting on nothing.

Or you must start special pleading fallacies and say that God is somehow exempt from all the rules and intuitions you would bring to bear to analyze whether some proposal is rational or absurd.


(Ann Gauger) #113

@Rumraket
This comment seems to appear out of nowhere, at least on my feed, and so is a perfect example too of what it discusses, namely, getting something from nothing.
And I have to say it also seems to be apropos of nothing.
Was this just a post untimely born, @Rumraket?


(Ann Gauger) #114

@John_Harshman
Autocatalysis


(John Harshman) #115

I see you are being very tight-lipped here. Is that part of the essential secrecy around all this ID research you say is going on?


(Mikkel R.) #116

Well my post contains a quote of the person to whom it is addressed, who wrote those words only 5 posts above it and addressed it to me. I am merely keeping that exchange alive.


#117

@Agauger

The problem I have seen is that ID supporters are looking for something that can’t evolve (according to their model of evolution) instead of something that has evidence of design. ID doesn’t seem capable of standing on its own. ID doesn’t have its own mechanisms that can make testable predictions, and it doesn’t seem amenable to the scientific method.

As always, I am more than happy to be proven wrong.


#118

@Agauger
There are many proteases that are autocatalytic, but I don’t see how that has much application in this discussion. Care to explain?


(John Harshman) #119

Appparently not, since that was a response to my request for explanation.


(Timothy Horton) #120

I would ask for the information on the when, where, and how the design was manufactured which you told us ID could determine just from the observed pattern. You did tell us you could determine those things, right?