Evidence for God from Science

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

I think we'll agree on a lot more. Meanwhile I'm not trying to define ID, but with (great) respect you appear to be trying to redefine the rules of science. To use an analogy, you are like a soccer player coming to play rugby and complaining about the ability to handle the ball.

As the rules of science are man-made, why are august's views worse than the views that you are working with? What standard do you compare them to, because, as you ought to know...from august's point of view, the current rules of science (aka naturalism) are bad.

Science may have begun as a persuit of truth, however it seems that it was too lofty of a goal. the reason science works is because we can go out into the field and duplicate the results. It has a practical side. Science ultimately is the ultimate form of tinkering. trying this and that untill you have some understanding how something works. Now one can find a watch and assume it was created by something because it is physical and we have prior knowledge that it was created by men.

Lets go back 5000 years in time and bring with us some insulin. It's a liquid created by genetically engineered bacteria. Will it be obvious to ancient men that insulin was created? What if we brought back a compact disc? What about an ipod? Will they know that it was created? On what basis would they make this judgement?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:the current rules of science (aka naturalism) are bad

Kmart : Logic, and in particular analytical logic, are an integral part of science. I'm talking logic = math here. If you think logic or math are bad then fine, but you'll excuse us for not wanting to use your approach in the science world. Fine for philosophy or theology - in fact great - but not science. Wrong rules.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Stop making up what ID proponents say.

I'm not making anything up. I am using (analytical) logic to examine corollaries of their theories. Trying to deny the right to independently examine the logical extensions of their theories (whether Dembski etc. proposed the extensions or not) is bad science.

When you study a scientific theory, you might be told who originated it. You don't have to hear their point of view however, except in the cold mathematical notation that expresses the theory for anyone to understand in any language. You don't have the originator, or one of their supporters, standing over you checking how you interpret their ideas.

Kmart : Logic, and in particular analytical logic, are an integral part of science. I'm talking logic = math here. If you think logic or math are bad then fine, but you'll excuse us for not wanting to use your approach in the science world. Fine for philosophy or theology - in fact great - but not science. Wrong rules.

I though august explained to you a little bit about this (analytical logic)? I guess you pay attention. Also, you're changing the subject. I said how was august's view wrong while yours was right, and then you jump onto this? And everything is full of philosophy, or do you think you can remove philosophy from something? Like science for example.

I'm not making anything up. I am using (analytical) logic to examine corollaries of their theories. Trying to deny the right to independently examine the logical extensions of their theories (whether Dembski etc. proposed the extensions or not) is bad science.

Give us a syllogism. Quote something the proponents say, and show us the premises that lead to your outrageous conclusions.

And BGood...just give up.

Science cannot find truth.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:And BGood...just give up.

KMart learn to read.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Science cannot find truth.

That's what I said.

BGood wrote:Science may have begun as a persuit of truth, however it seems that it was too lofty of a goal.

Hey on a serious note, KMart you ever seen the Marfa lights?
I need an excuse to head down to Texas, I have a friend down there I haven't seen in awhile. I'll drop by your spot too when and if I go.

So I can steal your hat.

MathMystic,

You keep making this broad claims like "you can't seperate the design from the designer" and "big bad science-type dudes are going to do something" but then you don't tell us anything about the designer. Could you finish the argument or is your intention to hang these massive statements out there and then stop short of supporting - or even defining - them? Reading your posts is like watching Lost on TV. I keep waiting for the plot...

BeGood,

It's good to see you back in the debate!

the reason science works is because we can go out into the field and duplicate the results.

Is that why you keep using genetics to support evolution? As we've discussed elsewhere, you can't duplicate the results. Pick one gene and you get one genetic tree. Pick another gene and you get a completely different genetic gene. And as if that isn't bad enough, send the same gene to different labs and you'll get different trees from the same gene.

Wall-dog wrote: BeGood,

It's good to see you back in the debate!

Thank you. I was out of town and not taking calls so it was just a vacation.

Wall-dog wrote:

the reason science works is because we can go out into the field and duplicate the results.

Is that why you keep using genetics to support evolution? As we've discussed elsewhere, you can't duplicate the results. Pick one gene and you get one genetic tree. Pick another gene and you get a completely different genetic gene. And as if that isn't bad enough, send the same gene to different labs and you'll get different trees from the same gene.

You make it sound like one gets entirely different trees. Have you actually seen the results? The results of different statistical analyses get you slightly different trees.

Look at the data, and tell me what you are really looking at.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pd ... ws0005.pdf
You make it sound as if there is no basis for comparison, or that the resulting charts inferred are baseless. Don't you think you're being a little misleading?

As to the veracity of the method.
The same statistical methods are used to identify paternity and family lineage within humans. Albiet on a different set of genes.

The method is tested and shown to work.
The results of analysis can be repeated and results do agree within acceptable and documented statistical errors. Do you have documents showing otherwise?

That's what happens when I get on a roll...I fumble the football

Wall-dog wrote:You keep making this broad claims like "you can't seperate the design from the designer"

Once you postulate "design" then you automatically postulate a "designer" or "designers" (even if you choose not to specify or speculate who they might be). It's not so much logic or science Wall-dog, it's just the English language kicking in.

Please answer some substantial responses to your nonsense.

I don't know why I bother to respond, you never answer any of my questions. Until you start giving some straight answers, this will be my last response, and we will just assume that you cannot answer those issues already raised.

mathmystic wrote:Meanwhile I'm not trying to define ID, but with (great) respect you appear to be trying to redefine the rules of science.

Redefine it from what? What rules? Do you mean the self-refuting methodologies of logical positivism, as you have previously hinted?

ID is proposed as science, and so it is subject to the rules of science. One such rule is that if one assumes ID to be correct, and then extends mathematical/logical reasoning to draw a contradiction with a tautology or a definition, or demonstrate a mathematical/logical inconsistency then the Assumption is deemed to be false.

What is mathematical or logical reasoning, according to you? Mathematics and logic are discrete in nature, totally abstract and indeterminate in respect of the peculiarity of relationships, and meaningless as such without external determinations and connections. Please show those external determinations, and the subsequent positing of the cogniting subject, which proves ID false.

You can't stop logicians starting with the assumption that ID is correct, and then demonstrating contradictions or logical inconsistencies.

Show it then. What contradictions? What logical inconsistencies? You have not demonstrated any logic statements.

Just because ID proponents carefully avoid identifying the Intelligent Designer, someone else can legitimately use set theory to show there aren't any possibilities for his identity anyway, and that is logically sufficient to refute the primary assumption that ID was correct. In this case tough for Bill Dembski, Mike Behe and the rest.

You keep repeating the non-sequitor as if it would make your statement true. You have not shown the logic. A few of us have asked you for a syllogism to prove your logic, where is it? What set theory are you talking about? What "sets" theory in the first place? How does it follow that failure to identify the designer precludes design?

My point is stay clear of science, because there are some big ugly dudes out there ready to nail you at their game.

Our game, my friend.....

See ya Math Mystic! I'm done feeding trolls...

BeGood,

We're already debating this on another thread. I'll continue there.

I think this has come to an end. If anyone wants it to continue take it up privately with me.

Kurieuo