RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Jerry Don Bauer's Thread, Lather, Rinse, Repeat< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,10:36   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2012,07:36)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)

Okay let me give a try:

 
Quote
1) ID is a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts. That's it.


No it isn't, I've never seen any science or mathematics or for that matter any real peer reviewed published research on the matter. They few arguments presented are full of holes and logic errors or are not consistent with evidence.

 
Quote

2) Other branches of science also use many of the same tenets to detect design in an artifact or a system such as paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics. Of course, when those same tenets are used in ID, often it is termed to not be science anymore by many detractors.


No I've never heard of archaeologists using CSI to determine if and artefact is Sumerian or Egyptian. Actually I've never seen anyone using CSI to do anything!

 
Quote

3) Forget the identity of a designer. Do you need to know the name of the designer of your hair dryer in order to know it was designed? Does an archeologist need to know the name of the designer to conclude that a primitive artifact is a tool rather than a rock?


That's like saying forget evolution in theory of evolution. Intelligent design needs a designer or you can't have a repository for the designs. Further you require that the design be intelligent, that really muddles things up for you as now, you have to deal with "only" intelligent sources how do you tell the difference? where do you draw the line? Are IQ tests necessary?

Yes an archaeologist needs to know the designers of an artefact or it could be ascribed to the wrong culture or even for something that's natural. QM is by no means intelligent and it doesn't have memory so it can't physically hold designs of elephants and/or onions.

 
Quote

4) We provide a model for initial design based on quantum mechanics just as do molecular design engineers. Unfortunately, Darwinism provides no models at all for abiogenesis.


You are confusing OOL theories with Theory of Evolution, abiogenesis is outside the scope of the Theory of Evolution. However you should note that there are many OOL theories that do look at this. If this is an issue for you please take it up with RNA world Theory or other similar abiogenesis theories. Further, ID, to my knowlege has never published anything in peer review to support any of it's claims.

 
Quote

5) ID is not a theory. There is no "theory of ID." There is no such thing as ID biology or ID chemistry. We study science just as does everyone else.


Many ID theorists would not agree with you. Just a thought, if it isnít a theory then what is it? You do not study science or you would have noticed that the facts do not agree with your (pre)conceptions.

 
Quote
Again: ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) or even Darwinism, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science altogether and base science back on the tenets of science. Something wrong with this?


ehm there is no such thing as a religion in science. Science presents objective facts, the facts are either accepted or refuted if other facts become apparent. Now remember that one of your leading advocates Mr. Behe stated that for ID to become part of science it would be necessary to warp science to such an extent that astrology would also qualify as a science.

 
Quote

7) There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.


How exciting, letís talk about positive evidence in the fossil record that supports "intelligent quantum mechanics designed a particular fossil". Before you do though, just give us a definition of what exactly are "intelligent quantum mechanics designers".

Quote
No it isn't, I've never seen any science or mathematics or for that matter any real peer reviewed published research on the matter. They few arguments presented are full of holes and logic errors or are not consistent with evidence.


On WHAT matter? There are TONS of papers that support ID. Are you expecting to read a PDF that begins, "OK, this paper is about ID science"......You won't find any of those because ID is not in itself a separarte science. We study biology, chemistry and physics just as anyone else does.

And, if this discussion continues to fruition, I will be happy to show you all the science and math that one would ever care to see on the subject...*wink*



Quote
No I've never heard of archaeologists using CSI to determine if and artefact is Sumerian or Egyptian. Actually I've never seen anyone using CSI to do anything!


No, I can't think of any reason for an archeologist to employ the predictive nature of probability mathematics such as CSI. I was referring to semiotics which both bodies of thought employ.


Quote
That's like saying forget evolution in theory of evolution. Intelligent design needs a designer or you can't have a repository for the designs. Further you require that the design be intelligent, that really muddles things up for you as now, you have to deal with "only" intelligent sources how do you tell the difference? where do you draw the line? Are IQ tests necessary?

Yes an archaeologist needs to know the designers of an artefact or it could be ascribed to the wrong culture or even for something that's natural. QM is by no means intelligent and it doesn't have memory so it can't physically hold designs of elephants and/or onions.


If you don't think OM exhibits intelligence, then I'll wager you have not studied the field in depth. I would suggest you begin with the double slit experiments where the presence of an intelligent observer affects how a particle behaves.

But yes, ID requires a designer, †but it does NOT require that we know who/what that designer is any more than it is required that you know the design engineer of the subway system every morning before you can ride it to work in the morning.

Quote
You are confusing OOL theories with Theory of Evolution, abiogenesis is outside the scope of the Theory of Evolution. However you should note that there are many OOL theories that do look at this. If this is an issue for you please take it up with RNA world Theory or other similar abiogenesis theories. Further, ID, to my knowlege has never published anything in peer review to support any of it's claims.


There are a TON of papers out there that support ID. I will get into a few as we progress.

However, I understand that Darwinism says nothing about abiogenesis, but here is the deal: Many people use Darwinism in their overall belief system to justify natural origins without intelligent interference. It is to the latter that I refere to when I throw out abiogenesis. It all comes together to compose a body of thought called Secular Humanism.

 
Quote
Many ID theorists would not agree with you. Just a thought, if it isnít a theory then what is it? You do not study science or you would have noticed that the facts do not agree with your (pre)conceptions.


It's just a field of study...nothing more or less. What is the theory of biology? What is the theory of chemistry? Sounds silly to even ask that, doesn't it....Doesn't mean we don't study chem and bios...etc.

Quote
ehm there is no such thing as a religion in science. Science presents objective facts, the facts are either accepted or refuted if other facts become apparent. Now remember that one of your leading advocates Mr. Behe stated that for ID to become part of science it would be necessary to warp science to such an extent that astrology would also qualify as a science.


This is correct...ID is not, in itself, a science. It is the study of science from a different angle: We may see design in a system or artifact when YOU are not even looking for design as you study it. That's all ID is.

And you sum up science very well. I just wish it were true that Darwinists followed your advice on this. If they did, there would be no such thing as a "theory of evolution" taught to innocent young minds. A hypothesis that has never been experimentally tested to take it to the theory level, yes.....but a theory....no.

Quote
How exciting, letís talk about positive evidence in the fossil record that supports "intelligent quantum mechanics designed a particular fossil". Before you do though, just give us a definition of what exactly are "intelligent quantum mechanics designers".


I will get into QM design when the time is right...Don't touch that dial....

But with sudden bursts of speciation so solidly shown in the fossil record, doesn't that lend creedence to about ANY pet theory of origins other than Darwinism i.e. gradualism? :)))

  
  740 replies since Nov. 21 2012,08:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (25) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]