RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (100) < ... 93 94 95 96 97 [98] 99 100 >   
  Topic: FL "Debate Thread", READ FIRST POST BEFORE PARTICIPATING PLZ< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,08:53   

Also need to ask something else.  Who in here has actually read "The Privileged Planet"?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,09:18   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,08:53)
Also need to ask something else.  Who in here has actually read "The Privileged Planet"?

What books on evolution have *you* read FL?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3285
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,09:40   

hey floyd,  I'm glad your back.  I'm hoping we can move away from the 'privileged planet' thing because it really isn't science either.

How about providing us with a tool, based on ID, that can be used to predict the changes in bacteria over 40,000 generations when exposed to various environmental issues or toxins and when limited in food choices?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3285
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,09:41   

hey floyd,  I'm glad your back.  I'm hoping we can move away from the 'privileged planet' thing because it really isn't science either.

How about providing us with a tool, based on ID, that can be used to predict how organisms respond at the genetic level to changes in their environment?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,09:42   

It's not the "facts" presented in PP that are generally disputed.

It's the argument that because someone wins a lottery, he must have been selected by some magic agency.

Of course the facts can be disputed. There are  astronomers who expect to find many twins of our sun because they have reason to believe our sun was born in a cluster of similar stars.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,09:47   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,08:48)
Quote
I'm enjoying the grown-up conversation now that Floyd has gone

a)  I'm not gone

b)  grown-ups don't do childish insults like that, Johnny---work on it

Right - grown-ups write things like "real meal deal" and "mamma jamma"  and "HMMMMMMM?"  and use weird font styles like this *********

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,09:48   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2009,09:18)
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,08:53)
Also need to ask something else.  Who in here has actually read "The Privileged Planet"?

What books on evolution have *you* read FL?

Not that it matters - whatever books Floyd has read contain absolute truth written by unimpeachable authorities....  At least when the truths they wrote coincide with Floyd's pre-determined conclusions.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,09:49   

Quote
I'm hoping we can move away from the 'privileged planet' thing because it really isn't science either.

What?  Falsifiability is no longer required for scientific hypotheses?  Did you actually address the specific falsifiers Gonzalez and Richards wrote about in their book?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,09:57   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,09:49)
Quote
I'm hoping we can move away from the 'privileged planet' thing because it really isn't science either.

What?  Falsifiability is no longer required for scientific hypotheses?  Did you actually address the specific falsifiers Gonzalez and Richards wrote about in their book?

Can you tell me how we could go about falsifying the claims made in PP? A single example.

Is that something we can do in a lab? In the next year?  10 years?

Give us an example of an experiment that can be done with available resources that will prove the case one way or the other.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,10:02   

Quote
What books on evolution have *you* read FL?

Understanding Evolution 6th Edition, Volpe and Rosenbaum
Evolution, Monroe Strickberger

....those two were for Biology 150, "Evolution", at my hometown university.  Got a "B".    

A couple others:

Evolutionary Analysis 3rd ed, Freeman and Herron.

....and my personal favorite (because he spilled the real beans on evolution), Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed.

Floyd Lee

PS.....so, who has read Gonzalez and Richard's book?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3285
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,10:04   

Answer this question floyd:

What is the expected and testable difference between a universe that is specifically designed for us and one that is not?

If you or anyone else cannot answer that question, then it isn't science and we can move on.

There is no ability to falsify the statements given in this book until several points are defined to a high degree of precision (which, I note, you and the authors fail to do).  Such things as (Thanks JohnW):

What's a "diverse scientific discovery"?  (Special and general relativity: one diverse scientific discovery, or two?)  

What's the "local environment"?  (Earth?  Inner Solar System?  Arms of a spiral galaxy?)

define 'superior platform'.

Explain the fact that "quite hostile to life" means that there would be no life, how can a scientific discovery be made.  If there was life, the environment wouldn't be hostile.

You see, scientists can't just throw words about (though we are all guilty of doing so) without having very precise meanings assigned to each word or phrase.  So, define and answer the above... then we can start thinking about whether it's even testable or not.  But before we do all of that... it's not a question that science can answer, therefore, not science.

What's a tool that ID provides to predict the reaction of HIV to a particular treatment program.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,10:06   

So my hypothesis is that God created vaginas because at the end of time they will grow teeth and devour the world much a la the Langoliers.

THAT IS FALSIFIABLE.

Just sit and wait until the end of time and if the vaginas don't grow teeth and devour the universe then IT IS FALSIFIED, BAYBEEEEE.

Hey Fold is that ID science yet?  It's equivalent to the PP hand wave cough "hypothesis".

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,10:08   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,11:02)
Quote
What books on evolution have *you* read FL?

Understanding Evolution 6th Edition, Volpe and Rosenbaum
Evolution, Monroe Strickberger

....those two were for Biology 150, "Evolution", at my hometown university.  Got a "B".    

A couple others:

Evolutionary Analysis 3rd ed, Freeman and Herron.

....and my personal favorite (because he spilled the real beans on evolution), Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed.

Floyd Lee

PS.....so, who has read Gonzalez and Richard's book?

all those textbooks lololol

so, after all this, the sum of your arguments are contesting textbook characterizations of serious science?  no shit.

hey guys i've got a physics book for seventh graders that has cartoons in it, but no real physicists use cartoons.  clearly that says something about those real physicists, lying scumbags that hate jesus and stuff.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,10:30   

Quote
It's the argument that because someone wins a lottery, he must have been selected by some magic agency.

It's not about magic at all.  Only about a rational, falsfifiable-via-observation inference of intelligent causation.

But your comment does illuminate what I was talking about earlier.  Intelligent causation of the fine-tuning we see in the universe, galaxy, solar system, and Earth, DOES at least carry a possible implication of a supernatural cause of that universe (the God of the Bible for example).  

Cosmo ID, if that hypothesis survives the falsifiers, would lend some measure rational support to those theistic philosophers and theologians and anybody who already agrees with the Bible's theism.

But it's still a scientific, falsifiable-by-observation hypothesis.

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,10:32   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2009,03:08)

Quote
True, however if the universe is "designed for life" I'd expect to see evidence of it elsewhere in the universe right now, given how old it is. In a "designed for life" universe there would be innumerable species that would have come and gone before we made it into the scene and I'm sure we'd see the evidence in the sky at some level. Dyson spheres all over the place, that sort of thing.


Sure, but how do you think that evidence would be displayed? In other words, for all we know right now, our very own solar system may well be teeming with life, but how would we know? We've dropped probes on...how many planets and moons? Two? We have rovers on Mars and they've looked at...what...less than .0000012 percent of the planet? How many other planets or other orbital bodies have we looked even this well? We've certainly had several probes fly by a number of our orbital bodies...at what...a few hundred miles away? So given this, there could very well be be Dyson Spheres all over the place, but we just haven't gotten far enough to even detect them.

Of course, I don't disagree with your overall point. There really is a great deal that indicates this universe appears not to be designed for life (or if it is, designed really poorly for it), but I'm just noting that we really don't have any idea at this point how much life might be out there.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,10:42   

Quote
fine-tuning we see in the universe, galaxy, solar system, and Earth, DOES at least carry a possible implication of a supernatural cause of that universe


Anything is possible. It does not argue for one cause being more likely than another, however. Assigning causes to the results of chance is called superstition, even by the religious.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
JohnW



Posts: 2228
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,10:57   

Quote (SLP @ Nov. 05 2009,07:47)
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,08:48)
 
Quote
I'm enjoying the grown-up conversation now that Floyd has gone

a)  I'm not gone

b)  grown-ups don't do childish insults like that, Johnny---work on it

Right - grown-ups write things like "real meal deal" and "mamma jamma"  and "HMMMMMMM?"  and use weird font styles like this *********

Exactly.  It was nice to have a real discussion with people who are capable of using multiple neurons simultaneously, and aren't making a pathetic attempt to sound like they're thirteen.  Oh well.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,11:16   

Quote
Can you tell me how we could go about falsifying the claims made in PP? A single example.

Let's do better than that.  Let's give you G and R's specifics.  These are the specific falsifiers for their particular cosmological ID hypothesis.  Please engage.
 
Quote
The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.

The opposite of this would have the same effect—finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.

Less devastating but still relevant would be discoveries that contradict individual parts of our argument. Most such discoveries would also show that the conditions for habitability of complex life are much wider and more diverse than we claim.

For instance, discovering intelligent life inside a gas giant with an opaque atmosphere, near an X-ray emitting star in the Galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night would do it serious damage.

Or take a less extreme example. We suggested in Chapter 1 that conditions that produce perfect solar eclipses also contribute to the habitability of a planetary environment. Thus, if intelligent extraterrestrial beings exist, they probably enjoy good to perfect solar eclipses.
However, if we find complex, intelligent, indigenous life on a planet without a largish natural satellite, this plank in our argument would collapse.

Our argument presupposes that all complex life, at least in this universe, will almost certainly be based on carbon. Find a non-carbon based life form, and one of our presuppositions collapses.

It’s clear that a number of discoveries would either directly or indirectly contradict our argument.
Similarly, there are future discoveries that would count in favor of it. Virtually any discovery in astrobiology is likely to bear on our argument one way or the other. If we find still more strict conditions that are important for habitability, this will strengthen our case.

******
Quote
Is that something we can do in a lab?

Doesn't seem like it much, but falsifiability of a scientific hypothesis is NOT limited to what can be observed in laboratories on the ground, as G and R's specifics make clear.
 
Quote
In the next year?  10 years?

Or even 20.  Or more.  Falsifiability of a scientific hypothesis NOT dependent on how many years it takes you to observe and record that one killer falsifying observation.

It's like what Casey Luskin said at EN & V on June 4, 2007.  He said it best:

 
Quote
Clearly the privileged planet hypothesis makes testable predictions. It may take much data to completely determine if the hypothesis stands the test of time, but Dr. Gonzalez’s viewpoint is testable and falsifiable.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3285
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,11:16   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,10:30)
But it's still a scientific, falsifiable-by-observation hypothesis.

What is the testable difference between a universe specifically designed for us and a universe that is not?

Can't answer... or won't?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
JohnW



Posts: 2228
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,11:26   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,09:16)
Quote
Can you tell me how we could go about falsifying the claims made in PP? A single example.

Let's do better than that.  Let's give you G and R's specifics.  These are the specific falsifiers for their particular cosmological ID hypothesis.  Please engage.
 
Quote
...the same stuff for at least the third time...

Please engage?  How about going back over the last few pages and "engaging" the many demolitions of this
'hypothesis" you'll find there.  It's essentially a subjective statement, Floyd.  It's not falsifiable.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,11:30   

Quote
The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.

The opposite of this would have the same effect—finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.


Fold you really are this stupid aren't you.

"Observe every thing in the universe from every place in the universe."

"Compile list of diverse scientific discoveries possible in any local environment.Then, like compare with a graph or something."

hahaahahahaha

yeah that's ID science alright, stupid ass.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,11:31   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,11:16)
Quote
Can you tell me how we could go about falsifying the claims made in PP? A single example.

Let's do better than that.  Let's give you G and R's specifics.  These are the specific falsifiers for their particular cosmological ID hypothesis.  Please engage.
 
Quote
The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.

The opposite of this would have the same effect—finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.

Less devastating but still relevant would be discoveries that contradict individual parts of our argument. Most such discoveries would also show that the conditions for habitability of complex life are much wider and more diverse than we claim.

For instance, discovering intelligent life inside a gas giant with an opaque atmosphere, near an X-ray emitting star in the Galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night would do it serious damage.

Or take a less extreme example. We suggested in Chapter 1 that conditions that produce perfect solar eclipses also contribute to the habitability of a planetary environment. Thus, if intelligent extraterrestrial beings exist, they probably enjoy good to perfect solar eclipses.
However, if we find complex, intelligent, indigenous life on a planet without a largish natural satellite, this plank in our argument would collapse.

Our argument presupposes that all complex life, at least in this universe, will almost certainly be based on carbon. Find a non-carbon based life form, and one of our presuppositions collapses.

It’s clear that a number of discoveries would either directly or indirectly contradict our argument.
Similarly, there are future discoveries that would count in favor of it. Virtually any discovery in astrobiology is likely to bear on our argument one way or the other. If we find still more strict conditions that are important for habitability, this will strengthen our case.

******
 
Quote
Is that something we can do in a lab?

Doesn't seem like it much, but falsifiability of a scientific hypothesis is NOT limited to what can be observed in laboratories on the ground, as G and R's specifics make clear.
 
Quote
In the next year?  10 years?

Or even 20.  Or more.  Falsifiability of a scientific hypothesis NOT dependent on how many years it takes you to observe and record that one killer falsifying observation.

It's like what Casey Luskin said at EN & V on June 4, 2007.  He said it best:

 
Quote
Clearly the privileged planet hypothesis makes testable predictions. It may take much data to completely determine if the hypothesis stands the test of time, but Dr. Gonzalez’s viewpoint is testable and falsifiable.

so your proof of "ID is Science" are hypotheses that can not be tested by our current level of technology?  I'm still waiting for definitions of "hostile to life" "superior platform" and diversise scientific descoveries".

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3285
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,11:33   

Again Floyd:

What's a "diverse scientific discovery"?  (Special and general relativity: one diverse scientific discovery, or two?)  

What's the "local environment"?  (Earth?  Inner Solar System?  Arms of a spiral galaxy?)

define 'superior platform'.

Explain the fact that "quite hostile to life" means that there would be no life, how can a scientific discovery be made.  If there was life, the environment wouldn't be hostile.

Finding another life form that has or does x isn't testable.  We would literally have to explore everything in the entire universe to verify or falsify this statement.  It's not possible.

So, what is a testable difference between a universe that is specifically designed for us and any other universe?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,11:34   

Fold are you Daniel Smith?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3285
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,11:37   

You've had three people tell you the same thing in just a few minutes.

Can we move on or is this it?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,11:40   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,09:49)
Quote
I'm hoping we can move away from the 'privileged planet' thing because it really isn't science either.

What?  Falsifiability is no longer required for scientific hypotheses?  Did you actually address the specific falsifiers Gonzalez and Richards wrote about in their book?

So, my moon=cheese hypothesis is scientific because it is falsifiable.  Thanks.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2228
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,11:41   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 05 2009,09:34)
Fold are you Daniel Smith?

I suspect Floyd's next move, after ignoring the expanding cloud of plasma where his "hypothesis" used to be, will be to announce that he has conclusively shown that he's right.  He'll make this announcement in a mixture of Spanish and French.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,11:45   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2009,11:33)

Quote
So, what is a testable difference between a universe that is specifically designed for us and any other universe?


And while you're at it Floyd, please explain how Gonzalez, et al, aren't question begging to when they present the argument "the conditions to support life, particularly humans, are rare and a narrow range, therefore the universe must have been fine-tuned since any deviation of that range would not have allowed us to exist." As I've noted now four times, Gonzalez does not know what parameters are "normal" for any given universe - the parameters we see could very well be 99.99999999% necessitated by having matter and energy. The writers don't know Floyd, and neither do you. To declare this a "privileged planet" is question at best and likely disingenuous.There is nothing remotely valid about Gonzalez's argument from a scientific perspective.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,11:45   

Help me out here guys.  i am new to posting to these boards with the IDiots but I see the same things everywhere.  Why are most of their posts cut and paste of other people's words.  Are people like FL incapable of presenting their thoughts in their own words?

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,11:53   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,10:30)

Quote
Quote
It's the argument that because someone wins a lottery, he must have been selected by some magic agency.

It's not about magic at all.  Only about a rational, falsfifiable-via-observation inference of intelligent causation.

But your comment does illuminate what I was talking about earlier.  Intelligent causation of the fine-tuning we see in the universe, galaxy, solar system, and Earth, DOES at least carry a possible implication of a supernatural cause of that universe (the God of the Bible for example).  

Cosmo ID, if that hypothesis survives the falsifiers, would lend some measure rational support to those theistic philosophers and theologians and anybody who already agrees with the Bible's theism.

But it's still a scientific, falsifiable-by-observation hypothesis.


Ummm...quick question - if the "fine-tuning" argument a la Gonzalez et al is actually valid science, as you attest it is, why did Gonzalez et al publish the concept through a private distributor in a book form as opposed to any number of scientific journals? Why didn't they present it for peer review per the scientific method and have it submitted to a scientific society for scientific research?

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
  2975 replies since Sep. 12 2009,22:15 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (100) < ... 93 94 95 96 97 [98] 99 100 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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