Answering Shermer · On ID vs Abiogenesis, debate part I · debate part II
Under the Meyer /
- Amar Mesic
- Meyer: "You have to evaluate arguments by the quality of evidence and the reasoning used to support them."
Me: Good Point
Meyer: Oh and btw I believe in a god even though there's no evidence.
Me: ??????????
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Where in the video was that second quote by Meyer?
- Rod Loucks
- There doesn't need to be a video if he believes in God and there's no evidence that's what he's saying
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Rod Loucks In other words, he's putting his p o v in the mouth of Meyer?
- Jesus Christ
- LOL! Meyer DOES believe in god. He didn't quote the second statement. He's highlighting the dishonest double standards that Meyer uses. ID needs to be proved on its own merit. You don't get to say it's true because there isn't a natural scientific explanation yet (even though there partially is). There is more supporting evidence for abiogenesis than ID. ID is 100% non testable. It's a joke that basically says, "Durrrrrr, this is really complex, therefor it was automatically designed." And instead of backing up their position, they attack the natural one. That isn't how it works.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "@Jesus Christ" - as you like to call yourself, though you aren't - "ID needs to be proved on its own merit."
Fine. X looks designed -> X probably is designed.
X not only looks designed at first glance, but closer study reveals even lesser chance it is by chance or other non-conscient mechanisms - > probability of X being designed increases.
Same thing for different reasons on X1, X2 etc for probably at least 100 fields - > probability of a designer approaches 1.
"You don't get to say it's true because there isn't a natural scientific explanation yet (even though there partially is)."
I am tired. I was thinking about this yesterday, and foreseeing someone saying that.
I had a great response to this yesterday. I have forgotten it.
Less great response, but adequate. Not only, there is no "natural" (as in non-conscious and non-rational) cause possible cause, but each such case points to a conscious and rational cause. Man's language and man's rationality being two (or two sides of one) over and above abiogenesis.
"There is more supporting evidence for abiogenesis than ID."
There is sufficient damning evidence against abiogenesis (in the usual sense, as in non-conscious and non-rational causes causing biological life).
"ID is 100% non testable."
Except each argument which it is based on, which is usually 100 % already tested.
"It's a joke that basically says, "Durrrrrr, this is really complex, therefor it was automatically designed.""
Complexity around a simple order, unlike complexity without any unity, kind of does point to someone ordering complex ideas and sides of reality around a simple one.
What you are attacking is the fact of drawing a conclusion, which attacks the criterium of testability as such. With non-conclusiveness of anything not tested apart from conclusion, you have no more conclusions to derive test criteria from.
"And instead of backing up their position, they attack the natural one."
It so happens, this is a side note, instead of backing your "natural" explanation, you attack ours.
More important, there is a logical conclusion type which goes "X is either designed or occurred without design. But X could not occur without design. Therefore X is designed."
And part of that conclusion type is backing the part that says "But X could not occur without design." This automatically does involve what you call "attacking yours".
That is how logically ordered debate and polemics do work.
- Jesus Christ
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Fine. X looks designed -> X probably is designed."
Not testable. Looks can be deceiving, and I don't think it looks designed, I think it looks complex and complexity has been shown in many cases to arise naturally over time. Without a test you can't say how probably something is, sorry.
"closer study reveals even lesser chance it is by chance or other non-conscient mechanisms "
Please post this scientific research for me.
" Not only, there is no "natural" cause possible cause, but each such case points to a conscious and rational cause. "
What do you mean there is no natural possible cause? There are numerous possibilities. It's funny how you deflect again to requiring natural causes to be proved in order to support ID, instead of actually supporting ID.
"There is sufficient damning evidence against abiogenesis"
Link me to the scientific research paper that provides evidence AGAINST abiogenesis. And again, even if abiogenesis were proved wrong it doesn't demonstrate ID, as I said, it must be proved on its own merit and you are entirely incapable of that.
"Except each argument which it is based on, which is usually 100 % already tested."
Inserting an assumption in between scientific facts, doesn't change the assumption into facts. There is literally no way to test intelligent design. You have to assume it.
"Complexity around a simple order, unlike complexity without any unity, kind of does point to someone ordering complex ideas and sides of reality around a simple one."
No, it doesn't unless you can test that claim.
"It so happens, this is a side note, instead of backing your "natural" explanation, you attack ours."
I'm not going around saying that atheism or naturalism is a scientific position. I'm not making claims about it. You (and Meyer) ARE. Burden of proof is on the positive claim, stop flipping it.
"More important, there is a logical conclusion type which goes "X is either designed or occurred without design. But X could not occur without design. Therefore X is designed.""
You can't prove that. How can you say it COULD NOT OCCUR without evidence? Again this is the same tireless burden of proof flipping. To say it was designed, you need testable evidence of a designer or design process or testable model that can make accurate predictions.
"That is how logically ordered debate and polemics do work."
LOL no. Basic logic states the burden of proof is on the positive claim. The inability to prove the opposing position does not make yours true, so unless you can prove it impossible you don't have an argument. I'm asking for testable evidence supporting ID. Why is that so hard? Proving abiogenesis wrong doesn't prove ID. Again there are supporting experiment for abiogenesis and NONE for ID.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "@Jesus Christ " "Not testable."
How it looks is in itself a test.
"Looks can be deceiving,"
It is a test for a look being deceiving I would be looking for. Not a test for looks "for once" not being so. Usually, they aren't. Flip that, and you make serious investigation impossible. Sure, often you do eventually "confirm" that the looks of such and such were "for once" not deceptive, but always that means you have been less stringent about supporting evidence. Get back, how it looks is default, we don't ditch how it looks until it be proven wrong.
"and I don't think it looks designed, I think it looks complex and complexity has been shown in many cases to arise naturally over time."
Has it?
"Without a test you can't say how probably something is, sorry."
You speak about statistic probability, I speak of probable in terms of reasonable.
"Please post this scientific research for me."
Since you mentioned abiogenesis, here are two against that:
CMI : The Miller–Urey experiment revisited
Published: 15 March 2015 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/miller-urey-revisited-oxidizing-atmosphere
Creation vs. Evolution : The Abiogenesis Problem
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-abiogenesis-problem.html
with Creation vs. Evolution : Provisional Caveat to Previous
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2014/03/provisional-caveat-to-previous.html
"What do you mean there is no natural possible cause? There are numerous possibilities."
Give your enumeration, I'll give my elimination. "Numerous" doesn't even start mentioning one of them.
"It's funny how you deflect again to requiring natural causes to be proved"
Not whether they are proved or not, they are not even possible. They are obvious or proven impossible. Edit : they are obvious impossibilities, or carefully proven impossibilities.
"in order to support ID, instead of actually supporting ID."
Total impossibility of "natural causes" certainly does support ID.
"Link me to the scientific research paper that provides evidence AGAINST abiogenesis."
Did, but here is more:
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Abiogenesis and Evolutionist Ideology
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2014/02/on-abiogenesis-and-evolutionist-ideology.html
CMI : Physicist’s ‘breakthrough’ on the origin of life: can thermodynamics of heat dissipation explain chemical evolution?
by Jonathan Sarfati and Carl Wieland | Published: 17 January 2015 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/physicist-breakthrough-origin-of-life
"And again, even if abiogenesis were proved wrong it doesn't demonstrate ID, as I said, it must be proved on its own merit and you are entirely incapable of that."
Not if the choice is binary. Life arose vs life was designed is binary. OK, life is eternal would be a third one. Hardly compatible with your type of cosmology, by the way.
"Inserting an assumption in between scientific facts, doesn't change the assumption into facts."
I meant the testable facts as precisely facts. Like, phospholipids don't arise in Miller Urey conditions, like AI is incapable of real translation.
"There is literally no way to test intelligent design. You have to assume it."
Your repeating that mantra doesn't make it true.
"No, it doesn't unless you can test that claim."
Basic implication claims are not testable, since testable per se requires an implication claim.
"I'm not going around saying that atheism or naturalism is a scientific position."
But a rational one. On your view.
"I'm not making claims about it."
You are at least making a fairly clear implicit claim it is possible and rational.
"You (and Meyer) ARE."
Sure : tested and proven wrong.
"Burden of proof is on the positive claim, stop flipping it."
Burden of proof is a question for juridics, not for philosophical discussion. In courts, someone is usually presumed innocent till proven guilty. There is a burden of proof on accusation, because there is a default position.
Apart from that, you are denying I present proof, simply because I was giving the answer to your arguments and the question of what my proof was hadn't occurred in your previous post, now it has, now I have given it.
"You can't prove that. How can you say it COULD NOT OCCUR without evidence?"
I was giving the general form, for each specific case there is evidence it could not occur without design. As phospholipids not in Miller Urey, as language requiring an understanding neither in machines nor in beasts.
"To say it was designed, you need testable evidence of a designer"
Which life and language are.
"or design process"
None possible for creation.
"or testable model that can make accurate predictions."
Complexity unordered requires no designer, complexity ordered around a simple idea does.
"LOL no. Basic logic states the burden of proof is on the positive claim."
No. Basic logic involves no default position, therefore no burden of proof.
"The inability to prove the opposing position"
Not inability to prove. Inability to support it as even potentially possible.
"does not make yours true, so unless you can prove it impossible you don't have an argument."
But I did.
"I'm asking for testable evidence supporting ID. Why is that so hard?"
Because you were giving another argument previous post which needed adressing too.
"Proving abiogenesis wrong doesn't prove ID."
Biological life:
- is eternal
- [or] arose
- [or] was created.
Eliminate eternity and spontaneous emergence, you have proven was created.
"Again there are supporting experiment for abiogenesis and NONE for ID."
Except Miller Urey is an excellent support for ID, since it doesn't produce phospholipids.
Except ALL experiments (Miller Urey and all replicas) show the strings of aminoacids are short and unordered = incapable of becoming DNA. Or even RNA.
Similar for language, there is no animal or machine that has mastered human language syntax, let alone meaning.
- Jesus Christ
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl
You might want to brush up on logic.
You said "probably" true, when you know nothing about the chance of it being true. Reason and probability are directly linked. The correct word is "possibly." LOL @ pretending the word "probably" has nothing to do with probability.
Known examples of complexity arising naturally:
- Big bang - all the elements in the universe came from one (hydrogen).
- The birth of a star - a simple gas cloud collapses and formed into a nuclear power generator much more efficient and complex than any power source known to man.
- evolution (you probably deny it, but I don't care, it's verified in science, so what fringe creationists and shills say doesn't matter).
- formation of complex molecules slowly over time from basic amino acids bonding together in a lab with a simulated volcanic turbulent atmosphere.
- There are tons of rock formations that APPEAR designed but are not and have natural explanations.
The argument that it looks like X therefor is probably X is not valid, sorry. It's possible, NOT probable. Looks can be deceiving. The earth looks flat without proper perspective, the moon looks like it has its own light, stars don't look like suns etc etc etc. I could go on all day, scientists go by what can be TESTED, not what something appears like and it's hard to postulate an explanation for something based on something else that we don't know exists (designer).
I asked for scientific research and you posted religious propaganda websites. Try again. Those sites are known for making false claims. Give me the testable research please. We are talking science and in science that is all that matters. You don't get it.
"Give your enumeration, I'll give my elimination. "Numerous" doesn't even start mentioning one of them."
There's this magical thing called google. Why are you discussing this topic if you are unaware of other possibilities?
Possibilities:
- God
- Multi-verse
- Membrane theory (string theory subset)
- Many worlds
- Eternal Inflation
- Cyclical Model
- Black Hole universe
- Plasma universe theory
And that's just a few of them. I'm NOT saying any of these are proven, but they are possible. We simply don't know the origin of the universe as this point. I tend to prefer multi-verse and membrane theory, but again these are just based on math(including god), there is no supporting evidence for any of them. If you are going to eliminate possibilities that is the same as proving them impossible. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!
"Total impossibility of "natural causes" certainly does support ID."
I'd LOVE to see you prove that.
"Not if the choice is binary. Life arose vs life was designed is binary. OK, life is eternal would be a third one. Hardly compatible with your type of cosmology, by the way."
LOL @ binary. There are about a dozen hypotheses on the origin of life alone. All of which could be true, all of which could be false, or some of could be correct while others are wrong. It's only binary if you are simple minded. And usually it's the god believers that say life is eternal, I do not think such silliness. Even if you rule out all of those hypotheses, there could still be other explanations for it that aren't known. If ID is the claimed explanation THAT needs to proved. It doesn't just hold true because we don't have an alternate explanation. How hard is this to understand?
- Big bang - all the elements in the universe came from one (hydrogen).
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "@Jesus Christ" Might answer only first half, internet time is drawing close to stop.
"You said "probably" true, when you know nothing about the chance of it being true. Reason and probability are directly linked. The correct word is "possibly." LOL @ pretending the word "probably" has nothing to do with probability."
Inherent probability is in the history of ideas prior to statistic probability, as St Thomas Aquinas and others are prior to Pascal.
"Known examples of complexity arising naturally:"
Looks not known.
"-Big bang - all the elements in the universe came from one (hydrogen)."
Not a known fact.
"-The birth of a star - a simple gas cloud collapses and formed into a nuclear power generator much more efficient and complex than any power source known to man."
Not a known fact.
"- evolution (you probably deny it, but I don't care, it's verified in science, so what fringe creationists and shills say doesn't matter)."
Evolution from microbe to man is actually not a known fact, and minor variations in hair colour or substances tolerated more or less is not ordered complexity arising, but staying equal.
"-formation of complex molecules slowly over time from basic amino acids bonding together in a lab with a simulated volcanic turbulent atmosphere."
Link to research appreciated.
Plus, probably not ordered complexity.
"-There are tons of rock formations that APPEAR designed but are not and have natural explanations."
Angels were arguably involved in the time of the Flood, as were devils.
Plus, is that really ordered complexity?
"The argument that it looks like X therefor is probably X is not valid, sorry."
It is probable.
"It's possible, NOT probable."
Possible means equal possibility, probable means looks give preponderance to one side, as long as nothing hinders it (usually the looks of something else or of same thing from other angle).
"Looks can be deceiving."
Can be. Here can is really just a possibility.
"The earth looks flat without proper perspective,"
Where so?
"the moon looks like it has its own light,"
How so?
"stars don't look like suns"
Correct, but are they actually comparable to the Sun?
"etc etc etc. I could go on all day, scientists go by what can be TESTED,"
Not with Big Bang or even Heliocentrism, no.
"not what something appears like"
Part of their problem.
"and it's hard to postulate an explanation for something based on something else that we don't know exists (designer)."
In the case that the explanation is the only possible one, we do therefore logically know that something else exists.
"I asked for scientific research and you posted religious propaganda websites."
Both CMI and my own blog took good care of the scientific side.
"Try again. Those sites are known for making false claims."
In a VERY biassed community. Known as in "known".
"Give me the testable research please. We are talking science and in science that is all that matters. You don't get it."
You don't get I gave it.
Possibilities:
- God - explains universe and life.
- Multi-verse - does not explain life.
- Membrane theory (string theory subset) - does not explain life.
- Many worlds = other word for multiverse.
- Eternal Inflation - does not explain life.
- Cyclical Model - does not explain life.
- Black Hole universe - does not explain life.
- Plasma universe theory - and does not explain life.
[summary to readers : one theory of origin / remaining cause of universe also explains life. God.]
"And that's just a few of them. I'm NOT saying any of these are proven, but they are possible."
While some other than God are possible, they are not complete explanations without God.
"We simply don't know the origin of the universe as this point. I tend to prefer multi-verse and membrane theory, but again these are just based on math(including god), there is no supporting evidence for any of them. If you are going to eliminate possibilities that is the same as proving them impossible. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!"
Impossible or inadequate as explanations for sth, that is possible as occurrences, but impossible as explanations for, for instance, life.
"I'd LOVE to see you prove that."
You just showed an enumeration where all explanations for life except God were eliminated.
"LOL @ binary. There are about a dozen hypotheses on the origin of life alone. All of which could be true, all of which could be false, or some of could be correct while others are wrong."
Or, all of them except God could be easily eliminable.
"It's only binary if you are simple minded. And usually it's the god believers that say life is eternal, I do not think such silliness."
Not for biological life and eternity past, no.
"Even if you rule out all of those hypotheses, there could still be other explanations for it that aren't known."
But could be ruled out by well chosen sets of binary choice. - God - explains universe and life.
1 comment:
on to next
Post a Comment