Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I was writing a paper today that involved intelligent design theory, and I started thinking about Kant's writing. Kant wrote that we find beauty in nature when there seems to be a purpose to it ("purposiveness". He continues, however, by saying that purposiveness does not necessarily mean that it was created with a purpose--it just appears that way because we, as humans, create things with a purpose.

I started thinking about this and the idea of IDT as an anthropic principle, and it came to me:

What if people have it reversed? Rather than things in nature appearing to have a design, what if human-designed things appear to have evolved?

I'm not sure if you're making sense or not with human stuff evolving....there would need to be a replicating entity reproducing itself to qualify as evolution. Most human constructs are in fact designed. But ID is crap, so you've at least got that much right.

Kant was wrong.

ID is crap.

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant

Don't worry; intelligent design was broken long before you got to it.

Originally posted by Devil King
Kant was wrong.
Originally posted by Alliance
ID is crap.
Originally posted by AngryManatee
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Originally posted by Gregory
Don't worry; intelligent design was broken long before you got to it.
KMC reaches new heights of intellectual discourse.

Id is not a valid theory.

Wow, I think people might be missing the point.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I was writing a paper today that involved intelligent design theory, and I started thinking about Kant's writing. Kant wrote that we find beauty in nature when there seems to be a purpose to it ("purposiveness". He continues, however, by saying that purposiveness does not necessarily mean that it was created with a purpose--it just appears that way because we, as humans, create things with a purpose.

I started thinking about this and the idea of IDT as an anthropic principle, and it came to me:

What if people have it reversed? Rather than things in nature appearing to have a design, what if human-designed things appear to have evolved?

Man doesn't exist because of nature, nature exists because of man? Is I close?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Wow, I think people might be missing the point.
Apparently, KMC is now made of stupidity and fail.

I'd give their approximate percentile proportions, but I believe that there's a sort of cause-and-effect relationship with them--one feeds the other, creating an infinite loop into which any coherent thought is drawn and disassembled into its material components.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Man doesn't exist because of nature, nature exists because of man? Is I close?
No. Not at all.

LMAO your feelings are hurt

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
No. Not at all.

Fiddle sticks.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Wow, I think people might be missing the point.

I couldn't find one.

"Rather than things in nature appearing to have a design, what if human-designed things appear to have evolved?"

Well, humans didn't design nature....so whats the connection?

And it was too late to wander through muck.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Apparently, KMC is now made of stupidity and fail.

I'd give their approximate percentile proportions, but I believe that there's a sort of cause-and-effect relationship with them--one feeds the other, creating an infinite loop into which any coherent thought is drawn and disassembled into its material components.


Probably solid, (excluding the bullcr@p language) because you just started doing it too.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Or maybe his mind has "evolved" beyond your understanding.

I'm sure he would agree with you.

lol

actually, its really likely that people who believe in Evolution do have a predisposition to look at things in the natural world and say "gee, that looked like it evolved". And yes, having a theory of evolution does probably make people try to conform observation to the theory (people will ask how a novel thing evolved, not if). I'd say it conformation bias.

However, I don't think that effects the validity of evolutionary theory, just yet another example of why our brains our inadequate to understand truth.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

actually, its really likely that people who believe in Evolution do have a predisposition to look at things in the natural world and say "gee, that looked like it evolved". And yes, having a theory of evolution does probably make people try to conform observation to the theory (people will ask how a novel thing evolved, not if). I'd say it conformation bias.

However, I don't think that effects the validity of evolutionary theory, just yet another example of why our brains our inadequate to understand truth.

Evolution is way too slow of a process to be able to see in nature without detailed study and observation. I don't look at a flower and say "wow! that evolved". However, I also don't look at a flower and say "wow! someone made that".

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Evolution is way too slow of a process to be able to see in nature without detailed study and observation. I don't look at a flower and say "wow! that evolved". However, I also don't look at a flower and say "wow! someone made that".

no, maybe not, but (and this is more about the expectations of someone with more familiarity and not about you at all) to someone who studied the evolution of flowers, they probably would look at a new part of a flower they had never seen and go, "how did that evolve?".

lol, I don't think it gives any credit to ID, but like, I'll come right out and say that when looking at new data in an experiment I wouldn't even think of interpreting it in light of dualism. So I can see some truth to this.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

actually, its really likely that people who believe in Evolution do have a predisposition to look at things in the natural world and say "gee, that looked like it evolved".
Ding-ding-ding, we have a winrar!

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Ding-ding-ding, we have a winrar!

ok, so humans are primed to perceive things as happening the way they interpret them as always happening...

The effect would be just as apparent in followers of ID. The data still supports evolution.

The point is, we only see things as being designed because we design things. Instead, perhaps we should look at our designed things from the perspective of "they look evolved."

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The point is, we only see things as being designed because we design things. Instead, perhaps we should look at our designed things from the perspective of "they look evolved."

I actually agree with you entirely

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I was writing a paper today that involved intelligent design theory, and I started thinking about Kant's writing. Kant wrote that we find beauty in nature when there seems to be a purpose to it ("purposiveness". He continues, however, by saying that purposiveness does not necessarily mean that it was created with a purpose--it just appears that way because we, as humans, create things with a purpose.

I started thinking about this and the idea of IDT as an anthropic principle, and it came to me:

What if people have it reversed? Rather than things in nature appearing to have a design, what if human-designed things appear to have evolved?




I read this book about "Constructing a Universe" and it detailed common patterns found in nature and in the wider universe.


It showed how hurricanes, tornadoes, and galaxies have a common structure to eachother. It even showed how galaxies have a similar structure to atoms.

It showed how prevalent number and shape is, how mathematics is involved in the structure of all things. Certian numbers, shapes, and patterns are repeated through all natural structures, such as bee hives, flowers, vegatables, pine cones, trees, rocks, etc.

IT definately made me think that Intelligent Design is entirely possible.


Now, Intelligent Design doesn't necessarily prove or validate the existance of the Christian God, but it certainly implies that there is some creator.


And if not, then in my opinion, it supports the notion that the Universe itself is Intelligent.


I think it is stupid to conclude that it is all just coincidence.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I think it is stupid to conclude that it is all just coincidence.

Didn't Socrates say that?

lol, the benchmark of an open mind

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
KMC reaches new heights of intellectual discourse.

It's amazing how everyone is stupid, but you.

Kant was wrong. Humans create things with no purpose all the time. Or, at the very least, no purpose that applies to everyone. He takes an intellectually ambigious stance on a lot of his conclusions. Talk about absolutes.

Also, what's the converse of this:



and the things we've created have evolved, along with how we use them and why we use them.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

actually, its really likely that people who believe in Evolution do have a predisposition to look at things in the natural world and say "gee, that looked like it evolved". And yes, having a theory of evolution does probably make people try to conform observation to the theory (people will ask how a novel thing evolved, not if). I'd say it conformation bias.

However, I don't think that effects the validity of evolutionary theory, just yet another example of why our brains our inadequate to understand truth.

I like this statement. There's probably a lot of truth to it.

But I don't think people with a true understanding of evolution will look at man-made constructs and try to find evolution. Man-made things are designed. But it's perfectly reasonable to look to nature and try to find evolution.

The problem comes with an inadequate understanding of either evolution or a belief in ID, which messes with all sorts of logical parameters. Most people tacitly accept evolution but couldn't describe its basic principles if needed. Others (and I find this to be common) will say "yeah, I believe in evolution, but why couldn't God have made evolution?" without realizing what it is that they're saying...it's ID on a basic, simpler level, and is the the usually-intelligent but misinformed base of people that ID gets its advocates from.

And those comments aren't aimed at Zeus, despite the opening post being hard to understand. They're more a critique of society.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I read this book about "Constructing a Universe" and it detailed common patterns found in nature and in the wider universe.


It showed how hurricanes, tornadoes, and galaxies have a common structure to eachother. It even showed how galaxies have a similar structure to atoms.

It showed how prevalent number and shape is, how mathematics is involved in the structure of all things. Certian numbers, shapes, and patterns are repeated through all natural structures, such as bee hives, flowers, vegatables, pine cones, trees, rocks, etc.

IT definately made me think that Intelligent Design is entirely possible.


Now, Intelligent Design doesn't necessarily prove or validate the existance of the Christian God, but it certainly implies that there is some creator.


And if not, then in my opinion, it supports the notion that the Universe itself is Intelligent.


I think it is stupid to conclude that it is all just coincidence.

This is confirmation bias at its most mainstream, since it's supposedly intelligent scientists behind the findings.

But you can find patterns everywhere. And when you make your canvas the entire physical universe, you'll be able to pull such coincidences out of it that it will seem impossible that it wasn't designed. But it is possible, simply because the book will never bother to list the literally incalcuable number of non-coincidences in the physical universe, nor extrapolate on the ones they cite to reach any justifiable conclusions. Look at these unbelievable similarities....so, um, there must be a Creator! Really?? To me, it's a large leap of logic.

Beyond that, patterns will exist simply because there are stable states at which things can exist, whether it's the motion of planetary bodies or the workings of an atom. Any similarity is probably more due to the uniformity of the laws of chemistry and physics than it is to some divine creator.

And to refute your last comment, I'd say it's stupid to assume it's not coincidence unless we have clear evidence to believe otherwise, because of the large number of rational explanations for any of it (some of which I've detailed) and the ridiculous confirmation bias present to attempt to justify it in a cosmically important sense.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
This is confirmation bias at its most mainstream, since it's supposedly intelligent scientists behind the findings.

This is not a book which claims that the universe is intelligently designed. It is a book composed of the studies of scientists and mathematicians who have collectively discovered, not only patterns in nature and in the universe, but similiar structures in every item imaginable.

I can't explain the book, because I haven't read it in its entirety. It focuses on numbers and shapes, then applies them to things found in nature. It also discusses how architects take designs and "blue prints" from nature to create what they do.


To explain it better, there are "formulas" which go into creating all that which is created. They are based on shape and number, primarily (obviously chemistry and biology come into the equation later).


I don't have the book on me now, its a book that I borrowed from a professor, but when I look at it again, I will tell u the title and author, so you can check it out yourself.






Originally posted by DigiMark007
But you can find patterns everywhere. And when you make your canvas the entire physical universe, you'll be able to pull such coincidences out of it that it will seem impossible that it wasn't designed. But it is possible, simply because the book will never bother to list the literally incalcuable number of non-coincidences in the physical universe, nor extrapolate on the ones they cite to reach any justifiable conclusions. Look at these unbelievable similarities....so, um, there must be a Creator! Really?? To me, it's a large leap of logic.


The fact that you can find patterns everywhere is exactly my point. The fact that there are patterns means that everything is interdependent. What I mean is that nothing exists on its own, completely different and original from all else. There is repetition of design in almost all things. Everything that exists seems to follow some common formula.

For example, a hurricane from the top view looks like a galaxy from the top view. The book discusses how the spiral is a prevalent design found in nature, and its significance.


When you said non-coincidenses, can you please give an example ? I don't understand what you are trying to reference.


And no, Like I said before, intelligent design, much less pattern, does not validate the existance of a God, or necessarily a creator.


What i personally beleive is that the Universe itself is intelligent. This may sound cliche, but I beleive that we living things exist, because that is a way the Universe becomes aware of itself. The Universe is not good or evil, it just is, and it sees itself through our eyes and experiences.

That agian, is just my belief.


But I don't think Intelligent design is a crock of shit anymore. Evolution is an intelligent design.

I mean look at the universe..remember there are quasars, binary stars, different types of galaxies and star clusters, many wierd and abstract repetitions that we do not yet understand.

But they are there. I don't think the universe just farted out of existance for no reason, nor do I beleive that existance is a coincidense. That, again, sounds stupid to me.

The universe is FAR too complicated to have just popped out of existance with no cause or reason.

And if you beleive that the universe did infact, pop out of existance, with no cause or reason, then I beleive that is stupid on your part.








Originally posted by DigiMark007
Beyond that, patterns will exist simply because there are stable states at which things can exist, whether it's the motion of planetary bodies or the workings of an atom. Any similarity is probably more due to the uniformity of the laws of chemistry and physics than it is to some divine creator.


But there IS an ORDER. You can't deny that.

There is universal organization. There is chaos as well, but there is order nonetheless. To me, it seems reasonable to conclude that perhaps the universe itself has its own intelligence. Perhaps an intelligence that we cannot fully understand or relate to (because we are limitted).

To me, that is the closest thing to God.




Originally posted by DigiMark007
And to refute your last comment, I'd say it's stupid to assume it's not coincidence unless we have clear evidence to believe otherwise, because of the large number of rational explanations for any of it (some of which I've detailed) and the ridiculous confirmation bias present to attempt to justify it in a cosmically important sense.


You have no evidense to conclude that the existance of the entire universe and all its patterns are mere coincidense either

And it seems extremely illogical to me to justs conclude such a thing. That as complex as the universe is, there is no order, and that the universe exists as a coincidental mistake that just happened for no reason, with no cause, and we are just lucky to exist today.

And if you wish to speak of things "cosmically important", then the Universe certainly implies.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The point is, we only see things as being designed because we design things. Instead, perhaps we should look at our designed things from the perspective of "they look evolved."

Why should we/what would be the purpose in doing so? A toaster, computer or Honda Civic is far different than a living organism.

As noted by DK, human made objects do evolve in a sense, a 2007 Ford Focus is far advanced to a 1908 Ford Model T, but it's "evolution" doesn't compare to a living organism. A Model T's offspring didn't "evolve/mutate" into a Focus and were better adapted to survive in changing enviroment. Comparing the two is faulty.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
This is not a book which claims that the universe is intelligently designed. It is a book composed of the studies of scientists and mathematicians who have collectively discovered, not only patterns in nature and in the universe, but similiar structures in every item imaginable.

I can't explain the book, because I haven't read it in its entirety. It focuses on numbers and shapes, then applies them to things found in nature. It also discusses how architects take designs and "blue prints" from nature to create what they do.


To explain it better, there are "formulas" which go into creating all that which is created. They are based on shape and number, primarily (obviously chemistry and biology come into the equation later).


I don't have the book on me now, its a book that I borrowed from a professor, but when I look at it again, I will tell u the title and author, so you can check it out yourself.

So, in essence, nature is wonderful, and has many interesting and useful forms, some of which form patterns with other aspects of the universe. Ok, conceded. The next step, the meaning you ascribe to it all, is the problem I have, because it isn't based on scientific patterns, it's based on unrelated belief.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
The fact that you can find patterns everywhere is exactly my point. The fact that there are patterns means that everything is interdependent. What I mean is that nothing exists on its own, completely different and original from all else. There is repetition of design in almost all things. Everything that exists seems to follow some common formula.

For example, a hurricane from the top view looks like a galaxy from the top view. The book discusses how the spiral is a prevalent design found in nature, and its significance.

You're outlining causality. Everything is interdependent....ok, cool. No argument here. Again, you're taking perfectly rational, physical phenomenon and acting like it justifies universal sentience.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
When you said non-coincidenses, can you please give an example ? I don't understand what you are trying to reference.

You mentioned everything following a same "common formula". Exactly. The laws of physics, chemistry, and evolution all worked together to form the universe as it is. The formation of planetary bodies, the evolution of sentient life, etc. etc. can all be described using these means. Any patterns to be found are simply because the laws of physics are the same universally, and will naturally create patterns and parallels because you're working with the same building blocks, whether it's galaxies or hurricanes, atoms or planets. It doesn't point to intelligence, just uniformity of physical laws.

As for the non-coincidences, I'm referring to any number of physical phenomenon that don't have parallels to each other. But if you read a book about all the coincidences (we experiences coincidences every day of our lives, some very profound...then take the entire universe and you'll find some grand coincidences that seem to have significance) you'll soon start thinking as if there's something greater going on.

But it would make a boring book: "Well, the motion of electrons around an atom isn't anything like the forces that create a tornado because..." then do that a few trillion times, and you wouldn't even be touching the surface. If you notice the "hits", or coincidences, and ignore the "misses" (our minds are great at doing this, which has an evolutionary basis as well) it's easy to fall into any number of beliefs. It's the same logical fallacy that leads people to believing in psychics.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
And no, Like I said before, intelligent design, much less pattern, does not validate the existance of a God, or necessarily a creator.
...nor does it validate universal sentience, or anything but mundane causality. But you're willing to concede these things but not that only because they don't fall into your particular realm of belief.


Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
What i personally beleive is that the Universe itself is intelligent. This may sound cliche, but I beleive that we living things exist, because that is a way the Universe becomes aware of itself. The Universe is not good or evil, it just is, and it sees itself through our eyes and experiences.

That agian, is just my belief.

I won't challenge your belief, which is fine, but I fail to see how it's applicable to our discussion of physical patterns. I simply don't see the connection (though I'm sure you do) and I see it as a huge logical leap that you're entitled to have but isn't rationally justifiable.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
The universe is FAR too complicated to have just popped out of existance with no cause or reason.

You just hit the nail on the head. Yes, the universe is unfathomably complicated. And this should be all the more reason to believe that it is a simple, unassuming, and certainly not intelligent, cause behind it. Christians see a complex universe and create an infinitely-more-complex Creator to make it, not realizing the logical flaw. The same holds true for a presumably complex universal sentience that "sees itself through our eyes". Only simple building blocks could eventually form the universe, and positing a complex origin of it only complicates the matter and creates a logical paradox of regressive causality.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
And if you beleive that the universe did infact, pop out of existance, with no cause or reason, then I beleive that is stupid on your part.

I believe that non-existence is a physically unstable state (it is), that quantum particles appeared out of nothingness (much as they do in the observable quantum leaps made by electrons around an atom, where matter is literally created and destroyed depening on which way the particle shifts), and eventually those particles gained number and coelesced into microscopic matter, and over an incalcuable amount of time the Big Bang singularity was formed.

This is only one of various plausible explanations for the origin of the universe from logical and simple means (this one, and others, are outlined in many of Stephen Hawking's books). So am I stupid? No. I have justified reasons for thinking you're wrong, even if I myself am wrong (I make no claims to infallibility).

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
But there IS an ORDER. You can't deny that.

There is universal organization. There is chaos as well, but there is order nonetheless. To me, it seems reasonable to conclude that perhaps the universe itself has its own intelligence. Perhaps an intelligence that we cannot fully understand or relate to (because we are limitted).

To me, that is the closest thing to God.

You can define God sufficiently that no one can deny it. Einstein believed in "God", but his god was the physical wonder of the universe, not an anthropomorphic deity or sentience. So I won't argue semantic points with that.

But yeah, there's order. It's the physical constants and rules of the universe I outlined earlier. They elucidate how order can come to the universe without need for a sentience or intelligence.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
You have no evidense to conclude that the existance of the entire universe and all its patterns are mere coincidense either

And it seems extremely illogical to me to justs conclude such a thing. That as complex as the universe is, there is no order, and that the universe exists as a coincidental mistake that just happened for no reason, with no cause, and we are just lucky to exist today.

And if you wish to speak of things "cosmically important", then the Universe certainly implies.

Well, ignoring the fact that yours is the more outlandish claim, and thus carries the burden of proof, I'll bite.

This seems similar (to me) to the ID arguments of "If you believe in evolution, you believe that a 747 jet can be created by throwing plane parts into a tornado and pieced together by it." Coincidences are the patterns we perceive, but it doesn't mean there isn't an order behind it. Evolution, for example, isn't blind luck or chance...specific physical laws create an environment where complexity can come from simplicity. The same holds true for the formation of galaxies and planets, and literally everything in the universe as well. If I thought it was luck or chance that created us, I'd be an ID advocate as well, or perhaps agreeing with you about universal sentience.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Actually, he didn't even comment on it. Then you made dumb comment that had nothing to do with anything...

So, why then are you attacking me? I must have hit a nerve.

I'm not attacking you. You did make a dumb comment. Comment = dumb. You =/= dumb.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I'm not attacking you. You did make a dumb comment. Comment = dumb. You =/= dumb.

Now you are in denial.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The point is, we only see things as being designed because we design things. Instead, perhaps we should look at our designed things from the perspective of "they look evolved."

Why couldn't you have said that to begin with?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Actually, he didn't even comment on it. Then you made dumb comment that had nothing to do with anything... Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Now you are in denial.

Originally posted by Nellinator


So, what?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
KMC reaches new heights of intellectual discourse.

I wouldn't call a line from the Philosopher's Song intellectual discourse, just entertainment.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The point is, we only see things as being designed because we design things. Instead, perhaps we should look at our designed things from the perspective of "they look evolved."

Perhaps we hsould look at both as opposed to subscribing to stupid archtypes which is what started this abomination of science religion and democracy in the first place?

Originally posted by inimalist
Didn't Socrates say that?

lol, the benchmark of an open mind



Oh look...i found similarities...it MUST MEAN SOMETHING.

Which is the root of ID ignorance. The only thing that means somehting is causality. If there is no causality, the most truthful answer is coincidence.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
But I don't think Intelligent design is a crock of shit anymore. Evolution is an intelligent design.

wow...you really stepped in quick sand.

Apparently there IS a natural order after all.

Originally posted by Alliance
coincidence.

No such thing exists. Baby Jesus has his fingers on the strings.

Then I'm sorry to inform him that either most of his strings have broken or Jesus is about as complex as my computer.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Id is not a valid theory.

Since a theory is pretty much a guess, why is ID invalid?

The mass quantity of bitchery in this thread makes me happy.

BAAWWWW EVOLUTION BAWWWW

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Since a theory is pretty much a guess, why is ID invalid?

Because it cannot be disproved.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/falsify.html

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because it cannot be disproved.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/falsify.html

So that's what invalidates a theory?

There's a million theories (guesses) as to who killed JFK, but are they all invalid or "crap" just because no one will ever know for sure?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So that's what invalidates a theory?

There's a million theories (guesses) as to who killed JFK, but are they all invalid or "crap" just because no one will ever know for sure?

I don't think it's a point of knowing for sure. Any theory about the death of JFK could be right or wrong, but they would still be a good theory if they in principle could be falsifiable. If in the future our technology allows us to eliminate some or all the current theories, what is left would be the truth. However, the very nature of ID can never be disproved because it deals with something that is outside of science. ID is a religious belief and not a theory.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So that's what invalidates a theory?

There's a million theories (guesses) as to who killed JFK, but are they all invalid or "crap" just because no one will ever know for sure?

Please don't confuse "scientific theory" with "cockamanie theory." A scientific theory is a proven model. Theory of Gravity. Theory of Evolution. Etc.

What you're actually referring to, in scientific terms, are hypothesis and wild-ass guesses. A scientific theory is NEVER a guess.

ID is not a scientific question.

Originally posted by Alliance
Please don't confuse "scientific theory" with "cockamanie theory." A scientific theory is a proven model. Theory of Gravity. Theory of Evolution. Etc.

What you're actually referring to, in scientific terms, are hypothesis and wild-ass guesses. A scientific theory is NEVER a guess.

ID is not a scientific question.

A thoery IS a guess. A scientific law is nothing but a guess that turned out to be right.

Why is ID not scientific? It's a guess like evolution.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Any theory about the death of JFK could be right or wrong.

That's my point.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That's my point.

But you missed my point.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But you missed my point.

Why does ID exist oustide of science? Science is concerned with finding out things exists right? Cryptozoology is all about finding beings that are only rumored or believed to exist. You know, the gorilla was laughed at by scientists until it was proven to exist in 1902.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
A thoery IS a guess. A scientific law is nothing but a guess that turned out to be right.

Why is ID not scientific? It's a guess like evolution.

Why? because you're so damn knowledgable to know? I'm sure you can tell me how quantum mechanics and electron orbital hybridization theories are wrong too?

1. Scientific terms do not mena the same things as fun little everyday definitions. Scientific word have specific denotations that may not extend to the common sphere and viece versa. A scientific theory is NOT a guess, no matter what your second grade definition of "theory" is.

A hypothesis is an eduvated guess (ie. based on facts). A THEORY (in science) is a testable model or conceptualization of a set of phenomena (ie. many proven and related hypotheses) A LAW (in science) is an absolute description.

Theories are often larger than laws (little simple equations etc.)

Evolution is not a guess, it is a synthesis of observation and proved hypothesis.

ID is not a theory because it is not testable, not based on fact, and not falsifiable. ID is not sceintific because it is not based on fact.

Understand now?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why does ID exist oustide of science? Science is concerned with finding out things exists right? Cryptozoology is all about finding beings that are only rumored or believed to exist. You know, the gorilla was laughed at by scientists until it was proven to exist in 1902.

The biblical god is out side of the natural universe. Science is based upon observations of the natural world. If the biblical god is out side of the natural universe, then science cannot make observations about this god.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The biblical god is out side of the natural universe. Science is based upon observations of the natural world. If the biblical god is out side of the natural universe, then science cannot make observations about this god.

ID doesn't mean or stand for the biblical god.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
ID doesn't mean or stand for the biblical god.

Does it stand for the Islamic god?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Since a theory is pretty much a guess, why is ID invalid?

Because it's not backed at all by scientific evidence.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The mass quantity of bitchery in this thread makes me happy.

BAAWWWW EVOLUTION BAWWWW

There's intelligent discourse in this thread, and also a fair amount of spam, but that goes for most of KMC. Quit acting like a child.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Does it stand for the Islamic god?

It doesn't specify. (science is suppossed to be objective)

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It doesn't specify. (science is suppossed to be objective)

So, the idea that an intelligence that is outside of the natural world designed the universe can be falsifiable? How is that so?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, the idea that an intelligence that is outside of the natural world designed the universe can be falsifiable? How is that so?

I don't know. You're asking the wrong person.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I don't know. You're asking the wrong person.

The answer is simple; you cannot prove god one way or the other. This fact disqualifies ID as a theory. It might be a correct religious belief, but it is a religious belief.

I like how Alliance disappears for awhile, but, as soon as a post about intelligent design appears, he's back and posting furiously.

DUDE ID TOTALLY WORTH GETTING PISSED ABOUT

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I like how Alliance disappears for awhile, but, as soon as a post about intelligent design appears, he's back and posting furiously.

DUDE ID TOTALLY WORTH GETTING PISSED ABOUT

And you continue to spam your own thread with insults toward other members. I don't think I've seen you contribute to the discussion since page 1. At least Alliance is staying on topic, even if you disagree with his opinion or tone.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
And you continue to spam your own thread with insults toward other members. I don't think I've seen you contribute to the discussion since page 1. At least Alliance is staying on topic, even if you disagree with his opinion or tone.
No one else is on-topic. My topic was not about intelligent design as a whole but rather evolution appearing as design (and vice-versa).

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
No one else is on-topic. My topic was not about intelligent design as a whole but rather evolution appearing as design (and vice-versa).

So because it went in a new direction, that's license to insult others?

Your topic was awkwardly worded and some misinterpreted it. Others just started talking about something else, which most threads seem to do. Check 10 threads in this forum...9 of them will have evolved into new topics (or was it by design...).

So learn to deal with it respectfully, because your current approach isn't going to do anything except make people upset with you.

*Shrugs.*

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Check 10 threads in this forum...9 of them will have evolved into new topics (or was it by design...)

omg





Closer to evolution.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
omg





Closer to evolution.

Glad someone noticed. My little comedic gems should not go unobserved.

31

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Glad someone noticed. My little comedic gems should not go unobserved.

31

what can i say digi, your a prodigy

undermining argument. if it is our perception and not objective physical traits which make us categorise things as EVOLVED. then it would stand to reason that the definition would hold true only for the present and would not be able to predict further evolutionary forms in the future, infact the definition would just change to assimilate any changes in the form of things/animals/plants in the future. but that isnt true, we can infact predict at teh micro level, which course evolution would take in bacteria etc and which of the changed bacteria would survive or die in the given enviornment. this also holds true for predicting the presence of INTERMEDIARY fossils which werent found at the time but were discovered after the prediction. same goes for physical theories, the existance of states/phases/dimension is theorised upon based on evidence and often times {large number of proven instances} proof is found later in emperical experiments to support the claim.

That is not an undermining argument.

First, long term, evolution depends on environmental factors and without knowing the future environment.

Secondly, there are studies that do predict short term forms. The Galapagos finches are perfect examples. IN years that are drought heavy and only big stronger seeds survive, you can accurately expect an increase in the beak depth and width in the next season.

Thridly, if we were oging to accurately predict a future form, we'd need an extensive knowledge of genetics and proteomics that we simply just don't have.

That is not an undermining argument.
yes it is, read down.





see, im talking about KNOWN enviornments which are not as dynamic as the real world. that is to make the case simpler and elaborate the argument of evolution being just perspective or some form of objective reality.




but isnt that in complete agreement to my argument?



that is why you look at MICRO level phenomenon so that the variables can be more or less acounted for. the thing is, whether micro or macro, it proves that the PHENOMENON, of evolution very probably isnt just base on our perspective as nihilo proposed. and u do not have to look exclusively at ecologically valid situations to establish that.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
but that isnt true, we can infact predict at teh micro level, which course evolution would take in bacteria etc and which of the changed bacteria would survive or die in the "GIVEN" enviornment.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
but isnt that in complete agreement to my argument? To be honest I can't find an argument...just a sting of sentances that don't make points and contradict eachother.



Originally posted by leonheartmm
that is why you look at MICRO level phenomenon so that the variables can be more or less acounted for.
That is not the case.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
whether micro or macro,
These terms are not accurate.


Originally posted by leonheartmm
it proves that the PHENOMENON, of evolution very probably isnt just base on our perspective as nihilo proposed. and u do not have to look exclusively at ecologically valid situations to establish that.

Evolution is just a biological theory. What social and other pseduosciences do with it is of no concern to us.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The point is, we only see things as being designed because we design things. Instead, perhaps we should look at our designed things from the perspective of "they look evolved."

Your argument, i.e. that proponents of evolution are simply imposing evolutionary patterns on designed processes is not sound as your premise, i.e. that an intelligent agent is responsible for natural processes multiplies entities unnecessarily.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
undermining argument. if it is our perception and not objective physical traits which make us categorise things as EVOLVED. then it would stand to reason that the definition would hold true only for the present and would not be able to predict further evolutionary forms in the future, infact the definition would just change to assimilate any changes in the form of things/animals/plants in the future. but that isnt true, we can infact predict at teh micro level, which course evolution would take in bacteria etc and which of the changed bacteria would survive or die in the given enviornment. this also holds true for predicting the presence of INTERMEDIARY fossils which werent found at the time but were discovered after the prediction. same goes for physical theories, the existance of states/phases/dimension is theorised upon based on evidence and often times {large number of proven instances} proof is found later in emperical experiments to support the claim.

In the instances you mention, usually the theory is mathematically sound when it is "accepted", even if there isn't evidence for it yet. Black holes were proven mathematically before they were physically discovered, for instance. But this generally only works well for mathematical and/or scientific theories, because anything outside of that is much more sketchy and open to rational critique.

Also, the large number of prizes and grants existing for the ability to prove paranormal phenomeon in a controlled setting, equal millions of dollars across numerous foundations and research groups. None have been claimed, calling into sharp quesiton the actual validity of the "states/phases/dimensions" that you seem to allude to as having proven instances. If anecdotal evidence is true, it should maintain its truth in controlled, objective settings. Any known case thus far has not.

I look at ID much the same as people looking at the bumps on an acoustic ceiling, most humans must make some sort of sense out of randomness and our minds must try and put order to chaos so we look for patterns when there are none such as seeing shapes in the bumps on an acoustic ceiling.

"pictures in the clouds" for those of us who don't live in recording studios.

Originally posted by Alliance
To be honest I can't find an argument...just a sting of sentances that don't make points and contradict eachother.




That is not the case.


These terms are not accurate.




Evolution is just a biological theory. What social and other pseduosciences do with it is of no concern to us.

as to the first two, i dunno what to say. but i think your getting confused in the last part. evolution is PROVEN FACT{i.e. dna's changing or mmutating over time and giving rise to individuals better suited to the enviornment which have a probability to passing their genes onwards}. ur referring to the THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION, and its assertion that we all came from common ancestors and humans evolved from apes etc. which isnt proven to a point as uncanny as to make relegious opposition beleive it.

please, do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.{if u consider natural selection to be useless that is}

Originally posted by DigiMark007
In the instances you mention, usually the theory is mathematically sound when it is "accepted", even if there isn't evidence for it yet. Black holes were proven mathematically before they were physically discovered, for instance. But this generally only works well for mathematical and/or scientific theories, because anything outside of that is much more sketchy and open to rational critique.

Also, the large number of prizes and grants existing for the ability to prove paranormal phenomeon in a controlled setting, equal millions of dollars across numerous foundations and research groups. None have been claimed, calling into sharp quesiton the actual validity of the "states/phases/dimensions" that you seem to allude to as having proven instances. If anecdotal evidence is true, it should maintain its truth in controlled, objective settings. Any known case thus far has not.

. i think your interpreting my post in reference to posts elsewhere. wen i satted "states/phases/dimension" i was merely referring to purely physical properties like entropy/quantum mechanics/time/space etc which were physically theorised before their emperical physical evidence came in. those terms are deceptive or referring to mystical concepts but that wasnt what i meant. i just used them in the absence of better terms to define physical phenomenon.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
please, do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.{if u consider natural selection to be useless that is}

I'm certianly aware of that, probably moreso than you are.

Originally posted by Alliance
I'm certianly aware of that, probably moreso than you are.

hmmm, u really like knowing more than me dont you?

Sorry. I've studied a lot of biology, ID, and the history of their conflict. I'm quite proud of that. (perhpas too much so?)

I'm not an apocalyptist by any means, but the ID debate represents a fundamental misunderstanding in US society. One that imo, is dangerous for the future of our society, science, and Christianity.

eheh. your sin=gluttony. same as the devil.

sayonara.

My sin is pride. Same as the devil.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Your argument, i.e. that proponents of evolution are simply imposing evolutionary patterns on designed processes is not sound as your premise, i.e. that an intelligent agent is responsible for natural processes multiplies entities unnecessarily.
I really wasn't making an argument.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
A thoery IS a guess.



No, my freind. A Hypothesis is a Guess.


Please google "The Scientific Method"

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
No, my freind. A Hypothesis is a Guess.


Please google "The Scientific Method"

lol, yeah. It's sad how sometimes something like "evolutionary theory" can be totally misinterpreted and ignored by someone because of semantic mistakes like this one. But we'd be much better off if we called ID a hypothesis rather than a theory.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I really wasn't making an argument.

No, just implying it.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, just implying it.
I re-read what you posted. I shouldn't respond when I'm tired, because it leads me to validate inadvertently a high level of fail.

The lack of commas marking appositives hurts my brain. I'll try to sort this out.

Sans unnecessary information, I think it is supposed to read:

"Your argument is not sound as your premise."

That argument being that "proponents of evolution are simply imposing evolutionary patterns on designed processes."

I never made this argument. I didn't imply the argument, either. In fact, I suggested that it might be the correct line of thought rather than intelligent design theorists' beliefs.

Then we come across this: "...your premise, i.e. that an intelligent agent is responsible for natural processes multiplies entities unnecessarily."

I didn't read that correctly, and it's not because I lack the appropriate mental faculties.

Here's how I believe it is supposed to be translated (correct me if I'm wrong): "...your premise, i.e., that an intelligent agent directing natural processes multiplies entities unnecessarily."

Or, taken out of pretentious-pseudophilosophical speech: "ID violates Ockham's razor."

This wasn't my premise. My premise was that we see things as being designed because we design things (based on the idea of anthropic principles).

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
This wasn't my premise. My premise was that we see things as being designed because we design things (based on the idea of anthropic principles).

However, I have never seen things that way. Maybe it's just me, or maybe it's just you.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I re-read what you posted. I shouldn't respond when I'm tired, because it leads me to validate inadvertently a high level of fail.

The lack of commas marking appositives hurts my brain. I'll try to sort this out.

Sans unnecessary information, I think it is supposed to read:

"Your argument is not sound as your premise."

It is supposed to be phrased, the way that it is phrased.




Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
That argument being that "proponents of evolution are simply imposing evolutionary patterns on designed processes."

I never made this argument. I didn't imply the argument, either. In fact, I suggested that it might be the correct line of thought rather than intelligent design theorists' beliefs.

You implied that "proponents of evolution are simply imposing evolutionary patterns on designed processes" by suggesting that "we should look at our designed things from the perspective of 'they look evolved.'"






Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Then we come across this: "...your premise, i.e. that an intelligent agent is responsible for natural processes multiplies entities unnecessarily."

I didn't read that correctly, and it's not because I lack the appropriate mental faculties.

Here's how I believe it is supposed to be translated (correct me if I'm wrong): "...your premise, i.e., that an intelligent agent directing natural processes multiplies entities unnecessarily."

Or, taken out of pretentious-pseudophilosophical speech: "ID violates Ockham's razor."

This wasn't my premise. My premise was that we see things as being designed because we design things (based on the idea of anthropic principles).

That "an intelligent agent is responsible for natural processes," or if you prefer, "an intelligent agent is responsible for directing natural processes," is a complex premise, i.e. an unstated but logically necessary presumption of the argument, "proponents of evolution are simply imposing evolutionary patterns on designed processes."

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You implied that "proponents of evolution are simply imposing evolutionary patterns on designed processes" by suggesting that "we should look at our designed things from the perspective of 'they look evolved.'"

No he didn't.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is supposed to be phrased, the way that it is phrased.
Then your grammar fails.

Um...no, I didn't. I think I just explained how I didn't.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I said no such thing, and I implied no such thing. You just assumed that I did because we Christians always have these sneaky, ulterior motives up our sleeves.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Stop putting words in my mouth. I said no such thing, and I implied no such thing. You just assumed that I did because we Christians always have these sneaky, ulterior motives up our sleeves. Stop telling them, you n00b.

People people people, lets all take a deep breath and stop.

Your about to get into the "Im arguing this, not that" argument...which goes round in circles...

I suggest, Zeal Ex Nihilo re-posts his belief as clearly as possible, then Adam_PoE can post his response. That way we wont have Adam telling Zeal Ex Nihilo what he's arguing and you will get back to the argument at hand.

what u'r saying is basically the same thing as:

red is a color because we called it "color", but it could be green to someone else, but they wouldn't know it to be green, cuz they'll only know green as "red"

Originally posted by Member.
what u'r saying is basically the same thing as:

red is a color because we called it "color", but it could be green to someone else, but they wouldn't know it to be green, cuz they'll only know green as "red"
No.

Could you add something to that short sentence?

Originally posted by debbiejo
Could you add something to that short sentence?
No. You're wrong.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
No. You're wrong.

Let me guess, "Because" would be the reason.

Yes.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Yes.

So, are you comfortable with that lack of support for your ideas?

and red often appear as green to color blind................

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Good thing I didn't use the term "contrapositive" but rather "reversal." Since I reversed both terms.

Reversing the terms does not produce a logically equivalent result.

Quoting posts that I quoted previously does not explain how these posts do not support the conclusion, "Proponents of evolution are simply imposing evolutionary patterns on designed processes."

Originally posted by Member.
what u'r saying is basically the same thing as:

red is a color because we called it "color", but it could be green to someone else, but they wouldn't know it to be green, cuz they'll only know green as "red"

but red does not evolve. it is subjective expirience. we do not have an initial definition of RED against which to put any random stiulus or expirience in. the reason why this argument can not be used to justify the "we define context, hence everything becomes evolved" argument is that society defines the objective reality by words and we simply put oyr sujbjective expirience in the physical expirience which is defined by society. however, if the example were to work on IMPOSING definitions onto stimuli, we would be defining a range of different things as red. however, reguardless of subjective expirience, the definition of red is CONSTANT, an can not be imposed onto say, BLUE. the DIFFERENCE in stimuli remains even in subjective expirience. but nihilo proposes that our definition of "evolved" changes every time sumthing new is seen to ASSIMILATE the new stimulus in our definition. or inversely, our PERCEPTION of the new thing changes to assimilate into the established definition of the constant "evolution". i dont agree with it based on the fact that humans beings are not so utterly delusional specially when characteristics of evolution have been defined and many htings fit and many things do not fit in them. i will agree though that generally, fossils etc discovered are on the whole thought by anthropologists and biologists to be part of the evolutionary chain even if there isnt specific evidence fot that particular specimen at the time. the reason is, that evolution has been observed in the entire animal kingdom and it is highly improbable from the scientist's perception that such functional organism arent a part of it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, are you comfortable with that lack of support for your ideas?
Erroneous.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Reversing the terms does not produce a logically equivalent result.

Quoting posts that I quoted previously does not explain how these posts do not support the conclusion, "Proponents of evolution are simply imposing evolutionary patterns on designed processes."
1. I maintain my initial statement.
2. While I'm sure that evolutionists do have a bias toward seeing things as evolved rather than designed, that wasn't the point of this thread.

Are you trying to say: "Imagine Paley's watch evolved?"

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Erroneous.

1. I maintain my initial statement.
2. While I'm sure that evolutionists do have a bias toward seeing things as evolved rather than designed, that wasn't the point of this thread.

I take that as a "yes, I believe what ever I want too, for what ever reason I want too".

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I take that as a "yes, I believe what ever I want too, for what ever reason I want too".

He's a Buddhist!

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I maintain my initial statement.

Your initial statement is illogical.




Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
While I'm sure that evolutionists do have a bias toward seeing things as evolved rather than designed, that wasn't the point of this thread.

By all means, explain the point.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
He's a Buddhist!

No. He would make more sense to me, if he was.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Are you trying to say: "Imagine Paley's watch evolved?"

Imagine if Paley was smart enough to define his watch.

Why are we using science from before people knew what air was?

Fvck your shitty satellites, I say the Earth be flat!

Originally posted by Alliance
Imagine if Paley was smart enough to define his watch.

Why are we using science from before people knew what air was?

Fvck your shitty satellites, I say the Earth be flat!

Noone ever actually claimed it was flat...

Originally posted by Alliance
Fvck your shitty satellites, I say the Earth be flat!

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Your initial statement is illogical.
FALSE.

I'm pretty sure that the posts I quoted spelled out the point rather explicitly.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I didn't say that artificial things were the results of evolutionary processes (not that the statement is illogical because it's not the contrapositive; it's illogical becase it relies on artificial selection). I did, however, say that perhaps one should view designed things as being evolved rather than seeing them as being designed.

Statement: Intelligent design theorists believe that some aspects of the natural world are designed.
Definition: "The anthropic principle states that we should take into account the constraints that our existence as observers imposes on the sort of universe that we could observe."
Statement: Since humans are capable of designing things, humans have a tendency to see things as being designed.
Conclusion: Intelligent design falls under the anthropic principle.
Addendum: The tendency of humans to see things as designed is a form of anthropic bias.

Statement: Evolutionary theory does not rely on the anthropic principle.
Corollary: Evolutionary theory is not subject to anthropic bias.
Dismissal: While evolutionists may have an anthropic bias to see things as evolved, they demonstrate less of an anthropic bias than intelligent design theorists.

Statement: Artificial things are designed and look designed.
Theoretical Statement: Natural things are the result of evolution and may look designed.
Statement: In eliminating anthropic bias, perhaps humans should view artificial things as evolved.

The problem with this post is that ID is not a theory, but a belief.

Human evolved and were not designed, therefore to apply the anthropic principle to humans and come to the conclusion that we see things designed is backward.

Arguing semantics over the name of the beliefs of proponents of intelligent design is pointless. Also, your second point makes no sense.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Arguing semantics over the name of the beliefs of proponents of intelligent design is pointless. \

No, its not because almost all proponents of ID misuse scientific terminology to lend false credibility to their argument. The problem is, the "joes" don't understand what these words mean and end up thinking that ID is correct because of popular appeal.

I've always found it amusing that the ones telling us how to do science correctly, cant do science themselves.

Originally posted by Alliance
\

No, its not because almost all proponents of ID misuse scientific terminology to lend false credibility to their argument.

Like what words, and how?

Originally posted by Alliance
\

No, its not because almost all proponents of ID misuse scientific terminology to lend false credibility to their argument. The problem is, the "joes" don't understand what these words mean and end up thinking that ID is correct because of popular appeal.

I've always found it amusing that the ones telling us how to do science correctly, cant do science themselves.
BAAAWWWWWW

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
BAAAWWWWWW

That is almost as bad as N/A, and you know who would give that reply when he was at a loose to answer.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is almost as bad as N/A, and you know who would give that reply when he was at a loose to answer.
The expression is "at a loss," and, his statement is unfounded. Can Michael Behe do science?

PROLLY SO

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The expression is "at a loss," and, his statement is unfounded. Can Michael Behe do science?

PROLLY SO

OK, thank you for clarifying that.

This:

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
. . . perhaps one should view designed things as being evolved rather than seeing them as being designed.

Implies this:

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
. . . artificial things were the results of evolutionary processes

Based on this:

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The point is, we only see things as being designed because we design things.

That is the whole point.




Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Statement: Intelligent design theorists believe that some aspects of the natural world are designed.
Definition: "The anthropic principle states that we should take into account the constraints that our existence as observers imposes on the sort of universe that we could observe."
Statement: Since humans are capable of designing things, humans have a tendency to see things as being designed.
Conclusion: Intelligent design falls under the anthropic principle.
Addendum: The tendency of humans to see things as designed is a form of anthropic bias.

Statement: Evolutionary theory does not rely on the anthropic principle.
Corollary: Evolutionary theory is not subject to anthropic bias.
Dismissal: While evolutionists may have an anthropic bias to see things as evolved, they demonstrate less of an anthropic bias than intelligent design theorists.

Statement: Artificial things are designed and look designed.
Theoretical Statement: Natural things are the result of evolution and may look designed.
Statement: In eliminating anthropic bias, perhaps humans should view artificial things as evolved.

The premise, "Evolutionary theory does not rely on the anthropic principle" and "is not subject to anthropic bias," does not support the conclusion, "In eliminating anthropic bias, perhaps humans should view artificial things as evolved."

Some not A are B, but it does not follow from this that all not A are B.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Like what words, and how?

First and foremost would be the equation of the term "theory" (which has a specific meaning in science) with popular words like "guess."

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
BAAAWWWWWW

Goats usually don't make effective arguments.

Originally posted by Alliance
First and foremost would be the equation of the term "theory" (which has a specific meaning in science) with popular words like "guess."



Goats usually don't make effective arguments.

Since a theory has yet to be proven, its not too far removed from a hypothesis is it?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Since a theory has yet to be proven, its not too far removed from a hypothesis is it?

Theory
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of ...

hypothesis
a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations

There seems to be a large difference. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation where as a hypothesis is a proposal.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The premise, "Evolutionary theory does not rely on the anthropic principle" and "is not subject to anthropic bias," does not support the conclusion, "In eliminating anthropic bias, perhaps humans should view artificial things as evolved."

Some not A are B, but it does not follow from this that all not A are B.
I'm not saying that artificial things actually evolved, but perhaps humans should view them from that perspective--the anthropic bias comes from artificial things appearing designed because they were designed, so, to eliminate this bias, one could view designed things as having evolved.
Originally posted by Alliance
First and foremost would be the equation of the term "theory" (which has a specific meaning in science) with popular words like "guess."
Using the colloquial definition of the word? IMPOSSIBLE!

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm not saying that artificial things actually evolved, but perhaps humans should view them from that perspective--the anthropic bias comes from artificial things appearing designed because they were designed, so, to eliminate this bias, one could view designed things as having evolved.

Using the colloquial definition of the word? IMPOSSIBLE!

Incorrect logic.

How is that incorrect logic?

Originally posted by Nellinator
How is that incorrect logic?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The problem with this post is that ID is not a theory, but a belief.

Human evolved and were not designed, therefore to apply the anthropic principle to humans and come to the conclusion that we see things designed is backward.

No, not really.

Originally posted by Nellinator
No, not really.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm not saying that artificial things actually evolved, but perhaps humans should view them from that perspective--the anthropic bias comes from artificial things appearing designed because they were designed, so, to eliminate this bias, one could view designed things as having evolved.

That is equivocal to treating measles with penicillin because it works on an ear infection; just because some not A are B, it does not follow from this that all B are not A.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Theory
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of ...

hypothesis
a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations

There seems to be a large difference. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation where as a hypothesis is a proposal.

Is it possible to disprove a theory, or is it 100%?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Since a theory has yet to be proven, its not too far removed from a hypothesis is it?

You still don't understand the sceintific definition of a theory.

This is Wikipedia's definition, which isn't half bad. I'll try to get somthing official from a Dicationary of science.

"In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation."

A scientific theory is very far removed from a hypothesis. A scientific theory is composed of a set of proven hypothesis.

Theories are continuously modified as new information is learened, but they can be used as if they are fact. It would be appropriate to say that a Theory describes the most factual presentation of a set of natural phenomena at any given time. Theories of electromagnetism and opitcs allow you to read this response (ie, the machines used to transmit recieve, etc. this message were constructed based on theories of how electricity works)

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Is it possible to disprove a theory, or is it 100%?

The fact that a theory can be tested and possibly falsified is an important part of being a theory. That is one of the main reasons ID is not a theory. ID cannot be tested or falsified. ID is a belief not a theory.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That is equivocal to treating measles with penicillin because it works on an ear infection; just because some not A are B, it does not follow from this that all B are not A.
Like I said, I'm not saying that artificial things should be viewed as actually having evolved, in the biological sense. I'm saying that one should look at them that way for perspective.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Like I said, I'm not saying that artificial things should be viewed as actually having evolved, in the biological sense. I'm saying that one should look at them that way for perspective.

And what would be the use of that perspective?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And what would be the use of that perspective?
Eliminating anthropic bias.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Eliminating anthropic bias.

Why would you want to do that?

Why is it necessary / how does this:

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Like I said, I'm not saying that artificial things should be viewed as actually having evolved, in the biological sense. I'm saying that one should look at them that way for perspective.

Accomplish this:

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Eliminating anthropic bias.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The fact that a theory can be tested and possibly falsified is an important part of being a theory. That is one of the main reasons ID is not a theory. ID cannot be tested or falsified. ID is a belief not a theory.

Originally posted by Alliance
You still don't understand the sceintific definition of a theory.

This is Wikipedia's definition, which isn't half bad. I'll try to get somthing official from a Dicationary of science.

"In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation."

A scientific theory is very far removed from a hypothesis. A scientific theory is composed of a set of proven hypothesis.

Theories are continuously modified as new information is learened, but they can be used as if they are fact. It would be appropriate to say that a Theory describes the most factual presentation of a set of natural phenomena at any given time. Theories of electromagnetism and opitcs allow you to read this response (ie, the machines used to transmit recieve, etc. this message were constructed based on theories of how electricity works)

What about the numerous theories of who wacked Kennedy? Can they not be proved or disproved?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The fact that a theory can be tested and possibly falsified is an important part of being a theory. That is one of the main reasons ID is not a theory. ID cannot be tested or falsified. ID is a belief not a theory.

I see.