RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (100) < ... 90 91 92 93 94 [95] 96 97 98 99 100 ... >   
  Topic: FL "Debate Thread", READ FIRST POST BEFORE PARTICIPATING PLZ< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,07:34   

FL, Do you think that "Cosmological ID" and "Biological ID" have different designers?

On what basis?

--------------
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

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,07:35   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,07:13)
Quote
Cosmological "ID" is still a different subject from biological "ID",
Intelligent Design is Intelligent Design.  I said I'd present posts on "ID is science and therefore it should be taught in science classrooms."  That's exactly what I'm doing.  What are you complaining about?

Guys, I can't help it if you've never read "The Privileged Planet" by Gonzalez and Richards. It's there at your local library and bookstore, it's been there for years, why didn't you READ it when you had a chance?  

Now you'll just have to play catch-up.  Your local library should be open today during daylight hours, yes?

FloydLee

Uh, no.

In REAL science, Cosmology is a different science than Biology.

But I guess in biblical literalism, as everything comes from the bible, they would be the same.

I guess it is another reason Floyd can't handle reality.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,07:56   

Quote
Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory

If the ID hypothesis (either cosmo or bio) survives falsification, the hypothesis would naturally tend to lend some measure of rational, philosophical support to theism, and likewise rationally subtract a measure of rational, philosophical support from atheism.  

That theism can be as simple as Gen. 1:1 or it can be a theism as simple (but not quite as simple) as John's NT statements about the Logos.
Either way ID, if it survives falsification, will tend to lend rational support to theism.

But that's what follows IF it survives falsification.

The fact is, neither Dembski's ID hypothesis (you will need to see his 1999 book Intelligent Design for an exact 3-point description of his ID hypothesis),
nor Gonzalez' and Richard's cosmo ID hypothesis from "The Privileged Planet",
pre-assume or require or claim ANY religious beliefs, any religious texts, or existence of God or any other deities, at any point of their respective ID hypotheses.

Therefore neither Dembski's ID hypothesis nor Gonzalez and Richard's ID hypothesis are "promoting Christianity" or even promoting any specific religion for that matter.  

Both YEC and OEC start with the texts of the Bible and their claims.  They don't start with observation, they start by assuming that certain Bible claims are true.

Gonzalez and Richard's specific cosmo ID hypothesis, starts with empirical observation not religious assumptions, and goes from there.  See the difference?

FloydLee

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,07:59   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,06:55)

Quote
Quote
Floaty won't or can't address the fallacies and illogical steps already pointed out to him.

Already refuted (from the book, ahemm) your claim that Dr. Gonzalez assumed his conclusions.   You could at least acknowledge that much.


LOL! Umm...negative Floyd. There is no question that Gonzalez assumes his conclusions AND starts with a faulty premise. He assumes that there must be a reason this universe is fined tuned and assumes that reason is humans, but there is no evidence this universe is fine tuned (there's no other universes to compare it to...for all Gonzalez knows EVERY universe MUST have these parameters) and there's no evidence humans had to exist.

--------------
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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3314
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,08:11   

OK FLoyd.  I'll bite...

please tell me, in detail, what evidence would falsify ID.  No wait, that's a stupid question because there is no ID hypothesis.  The only thing that would falsify it is some outragous statement like, 'if we didn't exist'.

You bring up Dembski.  How do you answer HIS charge that ID is not really science?  How about Behe's statement that ID doesn't have a research program (you'd think he's be leading it, but no).

Why is that your book 'Privileged Planet' is the font of all scientific knowledge and thousands of books that say something else are not... oh wait, they don't say 'godidit'.  So nevermind.

Floyd, have you read the transcripts of the Dover/Kitzmiller case?  It is quite obvious to anyone who is not seeped in fundamentalism that ID is based on Judeochristian mythology.

Would you like me teaching Wiccan in public schools?

BTW: You haven't answered the question "What is the difference between the 'priviliged planet' 'hypothesis' and the same result from any of previously listed scenarios.  i.e. what can we test to find out which is correct?

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

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

   
dheddle



Posts: 530
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,08:16   

Quote (Robin @ Nov. 04 2009,07:59)
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,06:55)

 
Quote
   
Quote
Floaty won't or can't address the fallacies and illogical steps already pointed out to him.

Already refuted (from the book, ahemm) your claim that Dr. Gonzalez assumed his conclusions.   You could at least acknowledge that much.


LOL! Umm...negative Floyd. There is no question that Gonzalez assumes his conclusions AND starts with a faulty premise. He assumes that there must be a reason this universe is fined tuned and assumes that reason is humans, but there is no evidence this universe is fine tuned (there's no other universes to compare it to...for all Gonzalez knows EVERY universe MUST have these parameters) and there's no evidence humans had to exist.

Actually there is compelling evidence that our universe is fine-tuned, if by fine-tuned you mean (what I mean): that the possibility of any kind of life at all is very sensitive to the values of the physical constants.

Or, more mundanely, the ability of our universe to produce rocks appears to rest on a razor's edge.

Using that definition it is more or less universally accepted that our universe is fine-tuned.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,08:38   

Quote
You bring up Dembski.

No, Oldman brought up Dembski.  I merely responded to him.  But I am not attempting to debate about Dembski in this thread.  Only Gonzalez and Richards' cosmo-ID hypothesis.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,09:12   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,06:55)
 
Quote
Floaty won't or can't address the fallacies and illogical steps already pointed out to him.

Already refuted (from the book, ahemm) your claim that Dr. Gonzalez assumed his conclusions.   You could at least acknowledge that much.

I'll acknowledge that you certainly dd not refute what I stated and you haven't addressed the criticisms I raised 6 days ago.

This was my response to your most recent post directed at me, Floaty:
 
Quote
Science doesn't work by ignoring fallacious preconceptions and illogic ...and leaping to preassumed conclusions.

Even the points you try to raise "how earth is precisely positioned...for life, but also to allow us to find answers to the greatest mysteries of the universe" relies on argumentam ad ignorantiam to make a claim that is preassumed and subjective.

Or how "water doesn't behave like most other liquids---and how each of its quirks makes it perfectly suited for the existence of creatures like us." is simply a God-of-the-gaps claim ( a version of ad ignorantiam pointing to  a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world, and assuming the cause must be supernatural or due to aliens.)  since we have no idea, for instance, whether or not subsurface life on Mars exists in conjunction with water, too. Nor do we have direct knowledge now of how many planets might be suitable for "life" , or what "life" means *precisely* or how many planets without water might harbor it -- other chemicals can conceivably be used for energy exchange and metabolic function, Flody

So far as we know, water seems neccessary for life as we know it, sure. But water is ubiquitous in this universe, so far as we know, Floaty  -- it's found on planets and moons and in interstellar space. Having it on this planet doesn't seem to be unusual at all -- it doesn't make Earth a Very Special Place. It takes a leap to a preassumed conclusion to claim it IS unusual on planets.

The rest of their list is post-hoc rationalization to arrive at a preassumed conclusion, too.

Avoiding fallacies, having actual testable hypotheses and means of falsification as well as eliminating well-known illogical flaws like assuming the conclusion...well, THAT is part of what science is about.

What Gonzalez is doing is merely pandering to his fan base -- and he's NOT doing science.


This also remains unaddressed by you, along with that larger set of criticisms I mentioned previously.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,09:16   

Then, FL, you agree with Gonzalez that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

Yes?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,09:29   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 04 2009,09:16)
Then, FL, you agree with Gonzalez that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

Yes?

An excellent point.

FL, please proceed to ignore this question.

--------------
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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,09:40   

Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,08:16)
Actually there is compelling evidence that our universe is fine-tuned, if by fine-tuned you mean (what I mean): that the possibility of any kind of life at all is very sensitive to the values of the physical constants.

Or, more mundanely, the ability of our universe to produce rocks appears to rest on a razor's edge.

Using that definition it is more or less universally accepted that our universe is fine-tuned.

I'll agree (with reservations) with that view. It IS seemingly "weird." I've used the latter statement you cited to illustrate the "weirdness" of the universe, however, I think most physicists would also concede a couple of points, too:

1) Even the phrase "fine-tuning" has an anthropomorphic bent -- to be "tuned" strikes a chord of agency which leads to Gonzalez or Floyd leaping to an unwarranted culturally-derived conclusion of a hidden deistic "tunER" that "just happens" to be their God.

2) the same set of "fine-tunings" has been used to suggest support for multiple cosmologic models -- multiverse (e.g. Paul Davies) , "holographic" universes (Bohm) or even Kafatos' "Concious Universe" -- none of which require or neccessitate the kind of personalized deistic agent as presumed by Gonzalez.  

So far as I can see, Gonzalez is still using an underlying set of mundane facts to leap to a presumed conclusion. I'd hope we can also agree on that as well, Mr. Heddle.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,10:51   

Quote
Even the points you try to raise "how earth is precisely positioned...for life, but also to allow us to find answers to the greatest mysteries of the universe" relies on argumentam ad ignorantiam to make a claim that is preassumed and subjective.

1. "preassumed."  

Refuted.  No evidence of any pre-assumptions in the book itself.  Their hypothesis starts with observations and data, not assumptions.

2.  "subjective."

Refuted.  Fine tuning cosmo and planetary situations have been empirically observed.  Many many times, btw.  
They're just going off what has been observed already, and were themselves careful to distinguish between well-observed phenomena, less-well-observed, reasonably theoretical, and speculative.

3.  "argumentum ad ignorantium."

Hardly.  We humans ARE astonishingly well-placed for the huge astronomical discoveries we make.  That's not ignorance, that's what we know scientifically.  Taken together with all the other fine tuning facts, one could rationally infer design instead of accident.

Check out this one little co-inky-dink, one of many:
 
Quote
"Thanks to its large, angular size, the Moon occults many stars along its path.  In this way, the Earth-Moon system acts like a giant telescope, allowing astronomers to resolve objects normally to small or close together to measure from the ground.

A slow angular speed of a moon across its host planet's sky, like our own, allows for more detailed measurements.  This method works best with a large moon without an atmosphere--which produces a crisp, knife-edge sharp edge on its limb--orbiting far from its host planet (but not too far, because the smaller a moon is, the fewer stars it occults over a month.) [

---pg 110

No wonder Earth is called the privileged planet!!

FloydLee

  
rossum



Posts: 179
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,10:55   

Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,08:16)
Or, more mundanely, the ability of our universe to produce rocks appears to rest on a razor's edge.

The universe is better tuned for rocks than it is for us.  The greatest part of the universe is interstellar and intergalactic space which in extremely inhospitable for us but hospitable for rocks.  Rocks can survive in the cold and anoxic conditions that occupy 99.99% of the universe, while we cannot.

We are merely an an unintended consequence of a universe designed to be hospitable for rocks.

rossum

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,10:56   

Quote
Then, FL, you agree with Gonzalez that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

Yes?

Nope.  Not at all.   Fortunately, his cosmological ID hypothesis does not require agreement with old-age.  The fine-tuning appears whether you like "Old" or "Young."

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3314
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,10:58   

Floyd, you're forgetting that if we weren't so 'well placed' then we wouldn't have the observations that let us assume we are well placed.

The assumption here is that human life is the end-all-be-all of the universe.  It's an unwritten assumption, but it is there never-the-less.

Again, what information would falsify this statement?
What experiment could be done to differentiate this statement from any of the four or so that have been presented as equivalent?

That's why it's not science.

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

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

   
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,11:01   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,07:33)

Quote
Quote
....observing X leading to falsification of Y occurs if and only if X is an entailed consequence of Y. In those circumstances, observing X leads to falsification of Y, but such falsification does not occur if entailment does not hold.

But curiously, nobody around here has shown that "...entailment does not hold" for the specific X's that Gonzalez and Richards wrote about in their book (which I previously quoted).

So, at your convenience?


Burden of proof fallacy. It is incumbant upon Gonzalez to demonstrate that Y is an entailed consequence of X. Gonzalez et al did not do so, hence the reason that their argument is question begging.

--------------
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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,11:04   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,10:56)
Quote
Then, FL, you agree with Gonzalez that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

Yes?

Nope.  Not at all.   Fortunately, his cosmological ID hypothesis does not require agreement with old-age.  The fine-tuning appears whether you like "Old" or "Young."

So, once again you pick and choose.

Tell me FL, what requirement is there for fine-tuning when your deity made everything as is just 6000 years ago?

I mean, you seem to disagree with Gonzalez that the planet is fine tuned for life. You don't need to fine tune something when you can create it exactly as you require in the first place.

Gonzalez would not have been able to write the same book if he believed the earth was only 6000 years old, yet you somehow think that does not matter.

Amazing.

--------------
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: 3314
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,11:04   

Quote (rossum @ Nov. 04 2009,10:55)
The universe is better tuned for rocks than it is for us.  The greatest part of the universe is interstellar and intergalactic space which in extremely inhospitable for us but hospitable for rocks.  Rocks can survive in the cold and anoxic conditions that occupy 99.99% of the universe, while we cannot.

We are merely an an unintended consequence of a universe designed to be hospitable for rocks.

rossum

I'd make the arguement that the universe is expressly designed for hydrogen.  There is more of that in more places than any other atom.  

Of course, we could also make the point that the universe is expressly designed for gravity... if humans can ever create/control gravity, then the arguement could be made that we are just are part of the grand plan to promote gravity.

See, we can make up stuff all day too.  And none of it science, even though it's said by a sciencist (more or less).

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

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

   
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,11:10   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 04 2009,11:04)
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,10:56)
 
Quote
Then, FL, you agree with Gonzalez that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

Yes?

Nope.  Not at all.   Fortunately, his cosmological ID hypothesis does not require agreement with old-age.  The fine-tuning appears whether you like "Old" or "Young."

So, once again you pick and choose.

Tell me FL, what requirement is there for fine-tuning when your deity made everything as is just 6000 years ago?

I mean, you seem to disagree with Gonzalez that the planet is fine tuned for life. You don't need to fine tune something when you can create it exactly as you require in the first place.

Gonzalez would not have been able to write the same book if he believed the earth was only 6000 years old, yet you somehow think that does not matter.

Amazing.

"amazing" is not the word I would use for FL's thought process.  pathetic-yes, amazing-no!

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,11:20   

Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,08:16)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 04 2009,07:59)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,06:55)

   
Quote
   
Quote
Floaty won't or can't address the fallacies and illogical steps already pointed out to him.

Already refuted (from the book, ahemm) your claim that Dr. Gonzalez assumed his conclusions.   You could at least acknowledge that much.


LOL! Umm...negative Floyd. There is no question that Gonzalez assumes his conclusions AND starts with a faulty premise. He assumes that there must be a reason this universe is fined tuned and assumes that reason is humans, but there is no evidence this universe is fine tuned (there's no other universes to compare it to...for all Gonzalez knows EVERY universe MUST have these parameters) and there's no evidence humans had to exist.


Actually there is compelling evidence that our universe is fine-tuned, if by fine-tuned you mean (what I mean): that the possibility of any kind of life at all is very sensitive to the values of the physical constants.

Or, more mundanely, the ability of our universe to produce rocks appears to rest on a razor's edge.


The problem is that such a concept is a reversal of logic. Instead of if P then Q the above is Q therefore assume P. But that doesn't work because you don't actually know that Q is the only condition that can be a result from P. Further, you don't even know what P is necessarily. Here's the logic:

A universe with life as we know it exists. This universe could only occur given a narrow range around the parameters we have. Therefore it must be fine-tuned. But you don't actually know what the range of possible universe arrangements could be. This universe could very well be with a range of possible arrangementst that would occur 99.99999999999% of the time, in which case this universe is anything BUT fined tuned. The other problem is the same issue a lot of folks have with respect to perspectives on islands. That is, this universe is supposedly fine-tuned only if you look at it from the perspective of "life as we know it" having to exist. Similarly, as Roy Scheider said in the movie Jaws, "An island is only an island if you look at it from the water". There's nothing that requires humans or any other life to be here; that just happens to be true. So assessing this universe as being fine-tuned for life is erroneous. It's no different than saying that water must be fine-tuned for sand since sand exists around almost all water on our world. Clearly it's actually the other way around in that case, and it's likely the other way around for life as well - it is logical to conclude that life is fine-tuned for the conditions of this universe and not the reverse.

Quote

Using that definition it is more or less universally accepted that our universe is fine-tuned.


Maybe, but it really isn't logical to hold that definition.

--------------
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

  
dheddle



Posts: 530
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,11:25   

Quote (rossum @ Nov. 04 2009,10:55)
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,08:16)
Or, more mundanely, the ability of our universe to produce rocks appears to rest on a razor's edge.

The universe is better tuned for rocks than it is for us.  The greatest part of the universe is interstellar and intergalactic space which in extremely inhospitable for us but hospitable for rocks.  Rocks can survive in the cold and anoxic conditions that occupy 99.99% of the universe, while we cannot.

We are merely an an unintended consequence of a universe designed to be hospitable for rocks.

rossum

Maybe. But the point is that any universe that can produce life must be able to produce rocks. And our universe, it would (at least at the moment) appear, just barely produces rocks. That gives it a shot at supporting life. Whether life is improbable in such a universe I couldn't say--but without the rocks, there will be no life.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
Amadan



Posts: 1255
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,11:26   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,10:51)
Refuted.


No Floyd, you supplied a rebuttal, and a pretty lame one too. A refutation addresses and overturns the opponent's argument, which you have not done.

   
Quote
 No evidence of any pre-assumptions in the book itself.  Their hypothesis starts with observations and data, not assumptions.


You yourself state their hypothesis (here) in these terms:

   
Quote
The fact that our universe, our galaxy, our solar system, our planet, our EVERYTHING, is so very finely tuned in dozens of ways, leads to a rational inference that our universe (including solar system, planet Earth, etc) is the product of intelligent design.


To state as a fact that our universe etc "is so very finely tuned" is a 'pre-assumption' (remember that word, Floyd?) that they were "finely tuned". Or do you have evidence that universes etc tend not to be like ours? Does that lead you believe that the conditions in ours (and not, of course, just in our little corner of it) reflect the intention of someone or something able to "fine-tune" those conditions? Why?

   
Quote
2.  "subjective."

Refuted.  Fine tuning cosmo and planetary situations have been empirically observed.  Many many times, btw.  
They're just going off what has been observed already, and were themselves careful to distinguish between well-observed phenomena, less-well-observed, reasonably theoretical, and speculative.


And in each such situation there is a natural explanation that can be traced back by empirical and logical means to the inferred conditions of the universe at its beginning. Why do you infer intention? Where's your evidence?

   
Quote
3.  "argumentum ad ignorantium."

Hardly.  We humans ARE astonishingly well-placed for the huge astronomical discoveries we make.  That's not ignorance, that's what we know scientifically.


Compared to a blind man in a coal shed, certainly. But on an astronomical scale, do we have a better-than-average view of things? Do you have any ideal of the scale of the Universe compared to our solar system, or even our Galaxy?

   
Quote
 Taken together with all the other fine tuning facts, one could rationally infer design instead of accident.


Why do you assume that the conditions you describe as "fine tuning" are improbable (i.e. unlikely to occur through simple action of natural forces)? What other universes have you been comparing our one to?

 
Quote
Check out this one little co-inky-dink, one of many:
         
Quote
"Thanks to its large, angular size, the Moon occults many stars along its path.  In this way, the Earth-Moon system acts like a giant telescope, allowing astronomers to resolve objects normally to small or close together to measure from the ground.

A slow angular speed of a moon across its host planet's sky, like our own, allows for more detailed measurements.  This method works best with a large moon without an atmosphere--which produces a crisp, knife-edge sharp edge on its limb--orbiting far from its host planet (but not too far, because the smaller a moon is, the fewer stars it occults over a month.) [

---pg 110


The same argument can be used to show that Ursa Major was designed to point to the North Star. Gimme a break.

   
Quote
No wonder Earth is called the privileged planet!!


Once again, compared to which other planets in which other solar systems?

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,11:30   

Quote
We are merely an an unintended consequence of a universe designed to be hospitable for rocks.

Goodness, what a dreary bummer hypothesis!!  Why not sign up with Gonzalez and Richards instead???

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,11:37   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,10:51)
Check out this one little co-inky-dink, one of many:
   
Quote
"Thanks to its large, angular size, the Moon occults many stars along its path.  In this way, the Earth-Moon system acts like a giant telescope, allowing astronomers to resolve objects normally to small or close together to measure from the ground.

A slow angular speed of a moon across its host planet's sky, like our own, allows for more detailed measurements.  This method works best with a large moon without an atmosphere--which produces a crisp, knife-edge sharp edge on its limb--orbiting far from its host planet (but not too far, because the smaller a moon is, the fewer stars it occults over a month.) [

---pg 110

No wonder Earth is called the privileged planet!!

FloydLee

Yeah, because nobody cfould ever figure out how to do such things anywhere else in the entire universe!

WOW!!!

What an amazing 13.7 Billion year old universe, accordign to Gonzalez!

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,11:40   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,10:56)
Quote
Then, FL, you agree with Gonzalez that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

Yes?

Nope.  Not at all.   Fortunately, his cosmological ID hypothesis does not require agreement with old-age.  The fine-tuning appears whether you like "Old" or "Young."

Ah, the old selective authority gambit - you accept their 'authority' - in fact you denmand that they be recognized as the ultimate authority - when you agree with their cliam, but you simply dismiss the same authority if they claim something you do not agree with.

Amazing how that works....

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,11:44   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,11:30)
Quote
We are merely an an unintended consequence of a universe designed to be hospitable for rocks.

Goodness, what a dreary bummer hypothesis!!  Why not sign up with Gonzalez and Richards instead???

If the universe is designed for life where do we only find it in one single place?

If the universe was in fact designed for our sort of life I'd expect to see a Larry Niven type universe, full of air and massive trees for people to live on. Every square foot habitable.

This universe is in fact "designed" for large empty spaces Stars and rocks.

--------------
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

  
dheddle



Posts: 530
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,11:58   

I know I have stated this before but is relevant. The Privileged Planet is, in fact, in at least one important way, slightly anti-ID.

Here is how. If you look at Hugh Ross’s arguments you will find that he presents observability as a tie-breaker. That is, in choosing between God and the multiverse he brings up the bonus fine-tuning trump card—that we are, without any reason to expect it, in a spectacularly good observational platform. And we are in the best time period for cosmological observations (distant galaxies will blink off due to accelerated expansion). And our large moon is scientifically beneficial in a number of ways, etc. It is as if, according to Ross, God wants us to do science. (I agree, by the way.)

Gonzalez and Richards actually pull the rug out from under this argument. They argue that observability is not a second, independent miracle—not a tie breaker at all. They weaken Ross’s cosmological ID argument in that they remove his tie breaker. Instead they argue—to me what seems in hindsight to be almost obvious—that observability is highly correlated with habitability.  Ross makes them independent. Gonzalez and Richards join them at the hip. According to the PP, you have to be in a cosmic backwater or radiation will get you—and that gives you a nice dark night sky. You have to have a transparent atmosphere in the visible part of the spectrum —and that permits astronomy. You need a large moon for orbit stabilization. Etc.

I think their arguments are reasonable and in some sense obvious. I think it is interesting that they in fact undermine the "independently fine-tuned for observation" argument of Ross.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3314
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,12:06   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,11:30)
Quote
We are merely an an unintended consequence of a universe designed to be hospitable for rocks.

Goodness, what a dreary bummer hypothesis!!  Why not sign up with Gonzalez and Richards instead???

Because reality is not determined by how depressing the alternates are.

I think that this is what you and all the other people who want to change science (and history in Texas) are missing and why this arguement can never be resolved.  

Do you really think that getting a court to order the teaching of Intelligent Design makes it a viable scientific enterprise?  

If so, then why didn't the courts nullify gravity in the late 50s to make space travel easier?

Reality sucks dude.  You can live in whatever fantasy world you like, but the real world is still there waiting to impinge on your perfect existence.  You can hold to whatever beliefs make you, personally, feel better about your existance.  However, no matter what you declare, the universe is still a harsh place with rules that science and engineers follow.  

Let's say that you somehow managed to get evolution 'declared' illegal.  Will that make all the antibiotic research automatically invalid?  Will super bacteria cease to exist?  Of course not and only a fool would think so.  When your doctor proscribes anti-biotics, do you take everyone of them like he says to?  Of course you do, because, in the end, you to knows that evolution, as a science, works.

Scientists, engineers, forensic scientists, doctors, even lawyers use tools that work.  If the tool doesn't do anything, then it's useless.

ID does NOTHING.  Go ahead, prove me wrong.  Name one scientific advancement in the last, oh, 50,000 years that can be attributed to research in intelligent design.

We can discuss specified complexity and panspermia and the suitibleness of the universe for rocks, but in the end ID provides no tools to advance science.  None.  Evolution does provide those tools.  Evolution tells us (in advance) what things we can expect to see when we look at the fossil record, and the changes in bacteria when exposed to antibiotics, and the effectiveness of HIV drugs, and a million other things that are neccesary for you to sit at your computer and blather on about how wrong it is.  

That is why, ID is doomed to fail.

So, tell us Floyd, tell us the tools that ID provides.  Tell us more than Dembski and Behe and Morris and Austin have ever done.  Tell us that... or go away in defeat, because in this case, there are only two options.  Prove ID is science or lose.

We're waiting.

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

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

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,12:09   

Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,11:58)
You have to have a transparent atmosphere in the visible part of the spectrum —and that permits astronomy.

Do you think it is possible that the "visible part of the spectrum" is so-named because we (the wonderful entities focusing on how wonderful it is that we are here in this wonderful situation) have photoreceptors that work with the light that makes it through our atmosphere?

Do you think it is possible that organisms on other planets with other atmospheres admitting other wavelengths might have photoreceptors that work at those wavelengths?

Sheesh.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,12:11   

Nonsense, FL.

(Take your pick on what I mean by "nonsense," basically everything you've ever written.)

However!

YEC requires a variable speed of light.  Look it up, moron.  Gonzalez is an adherent to the speed of light being a constant throughout the history of the universe.  Look it up, moron.

Therefore, Gonzalez proves that the universe is old, 13.7 billion years to be exact.

If you accept Gonzalez's proof of ID you must also accept an old universe.  Can't have one without the other because Gonzalez says so.  Look it up, moron.

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

Pages: (100) < ... 90 91 92 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]