Instead of just referring to aposteriori knowledge, perhaps you could present us with this knowledge that you claim to have.
Well, for one I have direct empirical knowledge that your arguments are fallacious and that you refuse to admit your errors and correct them.
Can you even read? DO YOU even read what is written??
Secondly, as Jaime rightly noted in his rebuttal to you, since you have only one universe to examine (and one case of life),
Are you sure there is only one universe? Argument from ignorance…AGAIN !!
Read my post again! I said you have exactly one universe TO OBSERVE. You need to start studying your logical fallacies better b/c you are firing off charges of them in shotgun manner and it's bullshit b/c you're not even paying attention. I have made no argument from ignorance here. I have argued from what is known not from what is not known! But YOU HAVE committed another fallacy b/c you have misrepresented my position!! It's called a Strawman.
Are you going to just keep doing that so dishonestly? Please think, read, and respond more carefully.
I never referred to any probability calculation. Your insistence along with jaimehler’s inplications that I am using a probability based argument is rather odd when I have indicated more than once that I am not.
Really...so let's get this straight then. You DO NOT think, then, that abiogenesis is basically impossible and that a divine creator is more likely to be the case?? You have implied this quite a few times (if not stated it outright).
'Where you sit' is on a bedrock of ignorance and incredulity (and gullibility mixed with pseudoscience).
Colorful….but senseless and rather adolescent.
Only an adolescent is required to note your string of fallacious arguments thus far.
You have not demonstrated that there are "insurmountable problems"
Yes, I have. You are just not reading my comments very carefully.
You are in error again. I have read them. You have not demonstrated anything of the kind you claim. You have just CLAIMED it (along with Meyer and the others). Those aren't the same things. I rebutted the fallacies you attempted to use and you just ignored the rebuttals, it seems.
And all "insurmountable" means is, "It's impossible without a God!"
Colorful…..but senseless and rather adolescent. I can only assume that you are trying to flaunt your ego rather than address the issues.
So then I am the adolescent now talking to the small child. "The word 'insurmountable' has many synonyms and one of them is 'impossible'. Do you know what impossible means Tommy? It means that something could not have happened." Insurmountable at Dictionary.com ("Impossible" is a synonym)
So you are
in fact using an argument from incredulity fallacy in an attempt to support your position, because you are saying "it could not have happened" (aka - It is insurmountable aka impossible). Are you now willing to admit you are using this argument and retract it?
The fact that you can't see this though is not surprising. Your continual use of the incredulity fallacy doesn't make it any less fallacious.
Do you know that an argument can contain fallacies and still be accurate?
Wow, a new tactic. Are you admitting now that your arguments contain fallacious reasoning?
Secondly, even if it were true that I had "no way of knowing" (and it's not) this would't get you even one step closer to proving your mere assertion of "It's impossible without magicYahweh
This is a statement of opinion and offers no substance to the discussion.
NOPE. It is not my opinion whatsoever. You really need to go back and do your logic homework more carefully. Take a junior course in Logic 100 or something. It is logically fallacious to state because a person does not know
how a specific phenomena occurred that such a phenomena is impossible. I'm sorry that you have decided to shrug off any refutation of your fallacious arguments as "opinion" but your arguments are still in error.
Okay. If you say that you “made no argument stating abiogenesis happened” then I believe you.
Also, how can you know I am pretending? For someone who accuses of logical fallacies like they were raining from the sky, you sure make a lot fallacious arguments yourself.
If I had any confidence that you actually knew what you were talking about in regards to noting informal logical fallacies (and I don't) I might take this statement seriously. At least 3 times in this discussion you have pushed forward false charges against my rebuttals to you. I rebutted those false charges and still you will not correct your errors. Where is your intellectual integrity? I thought you were supposed to be a follower of Christ/God, who is supposedly watching your every thought, word, and action.
Faith is pretending to know what you don't know (or believing things without sound reason), and that is what I perceive you to be doing.
You just stated earlier that there is "no known natural law" that can explain abiogenesis. Is there some "known law" that explains your God?
All “known laws” of nature explain God.
That doesn't explain anything! Care to actually provide something more substantial than just "God didit" again? You didn't even bother to define what the crap it is you are talking about when you use the term "God" (first off), and you didn't do any work explaining how you think you know this alleged "God" thing provides a meaningful/useful/coherent explanation for any natural law. You might as well have said, "All known laws of nature explain blarkschmarbelfarben"
You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. My response was that even if this were true (and it's not) then it would also apply to YOUR argument as well. "Not known" = "We don't know" which means you don't get to just ASSERT some supernatural deity 'thing' and pretend it's "more plausible" or somehow scientific.
The “pretend” accusation again.
The dismissal of my rebuttal and refusal to address it, again. This seems to be your MO. My point stands. If you do not currently know a law, or method, or pathway for life's origination on the earth then YOU TOO must admit ignorance. This whole time you have been practicing intellectual hypocrisy b/c you have, on one hand, accused many of us here of arguing from ignorance (Abiogenesis didit) but then a second later claim God didit. That doesn't explain anything. It has no explanatory power because it provides no new information of HOW (the pathway) life got here.
Stop pretending you know things you don't know.
We're back to the argument for Zeus from unknown lightening! If there was no known law, or no known rational explanation, then you too would be in that category of NOT KNOWING. But you're not, are you? You're not willing to admit ignorance on the subject. Due to your presuppositional confirmation bias (which is based in your assumed theology) you jump the gun and assert "magic is more plausible."
And still more logical fallacies and unsubstantiated accusations.
I'll take this as the admission of your defeat, since you didn't even bother to address the argument I made and instead just shrugged it off by making bald assertions with no backing. The argument I made was not fallacious (I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise - not just CLAIM as you always do) and it was in fact substantiated on it's own. If there is no known rational (aka - valid and sound) explanation for life's origins then you, also, would be in that category of "no known" (aka - no one knows).
Merely asserting "God didit" is akin to claiming magic (yes, more real than David Copperfield, David Blane, or Criss Angel - doing tricks that seem impossible).
Oh brother. The ToE may be the biggest shell game ever crafted and you are going to accuse IDT of that? Okay, now you are really demonstrating self deception and ignorance.
Keep telling yourself that, but it doesn't make it anymore true. Saying it is so doesn't make it so. Sorry dude.
Care to actually demonstrate how the entire theory of evolution (including ALL of it's constituent parts - as you just claimed) are "the biggest shell game crafted"? Are you actually some conspiracy theorist who thinks biological organisms do not change the frequency of their alleles, or do you just have no clue WTF you're talking about b/c you haven't studied the science.
Are you really that dishonest so as to claim you're NOT making the "Goddidit" argument in one section of a post and then later do exactly that?
What? Please read what I am writing instead of what you THINK I am writing.
There is absolutely no convincing evidence for speciation so if you are clumping that into your argument that the ToE is a scientific theory then you are being willfully dishonest.
That's a funny statement because the overwhelming amount of scientists (many of whom are professing Christians btw) who have actually studied this stuff disagree with you and not only find the evidence quite convincing, but have also demonstrated speciation in a lab. Do you even know what speciation is according to the scientific community? There is no "willfully dishonest" in rebutting your nonsense claims based in your ignorance of the subject. But there is
your dishonesty by continually using the argument from incredulity fallacy and refusing and admit and correct it.
Second, even if there was no evidence for speciation (and there is ample) you would still have to demonstrate your thesis (not just claim it). Your deity conjecture doesn't win by default. You need actual evidence in science.
Have you even bothered to take any biology courses? If so, which ones? Please name them specifically. In case you hadn't noticed, science doesn't deal in "absolute truth". It apportions understanding and knowledge based upon the preponderance of evidence (and often times that evidence takes many years to both study and understand - just like mathematics, physics, and many other disciplines). Does this really need to be pointed out to you? Your mere attempt of hole poking (just like Meyers and all the rest in the ID movement), along with the "It's impossible w/out a designer!" cry, displays quite clearly the anti-science agenda that lies just beneath the surface - oh the irony of those words: "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves..."
I’ll grant that you are gifted at commentary but not so gifted at making factual arguments.
I'll take that as a resounding "No" since you pulled a big fat dodge here and didn't answer my questions. So basically, you haven't taken any proper courses on the relevant subjects of which we are discussing (aka - any evolutionary biology, biological anthropology, or paleontology courses). Is this correct?
Yet another genuine display of ignorance and self-deception. You slithered right past the example I gave and didn’t even address it.
I actually already addressed this and you ignored it or forgot about it but I will address it again. First, abiogenesis is a separate domain from ToE (which deals with life as it is already found here) and the scientific community actually agrees with me. Have you bothered to ask actual biologists or paleontologists about this? I know at least six professional biologists (friends and acquaintances) working in the field right now (4 of whom believe in a God and ALL of whom have done post doctoral work), but facts just don't matter to you do they? I'm sorry, the ignorance and self-deception are yours.
Secondly, the analogy of abiogenesis and ToE to the steel industry with car making is an inaccurate one because we are talking about different domains of study and investigation (not artificial human invention pertaining to things we already understand). In the steel industry we have demonstrations of human designers poring steel (no study required). We do not, however, have this with life origin studies.
Again, abiogenesis is a different domain of inquiry. It may be related to ToE but it is still a different subject with different competing hypotheses. They are not the same.
I did this earlier in the thread. You are more than welcome to browse back through my posts and find it.
No, you didn't. You did not provide a detailed explanation of what the ToE actually states, as stated by the biologists teaching it and working in the field themselves. You started off by merely claiming that ID is a "theory", when it's not. You then began criticizing a textbook for using the word "know". We rebutted that.
Then you claimed that ID is science by copy/pasting evolution news alleged predictions (those claims were rebutted, as they were not specific to ID or post hoc). Then you went on to admit that your argument for ID is in fact a NEGATIVE argument (indicating that you have no positive evidence for ID - just claims). You then went on to claim
that ID does just an "excellent job" of stating how a creator is possible (which still is not science but assertion without sound evidence). Then, in #95 you indicate that you are not a denier of the ToE (when just a few paragraphs back from here you implied that it was false and that speciation doesn't occur). Then you admit that it is just your opinion that ID is science and that it "pushes the boundaries" (no duh). Then in #152 you make arguments for God/Christianity (which clearly is not science and all of which I rebutted). You continue to equivocate on the word "know" as if it means absolute perfection of unchanging information (when it doesn't) and falsely claim we have "faith in science". Later you just claim (again) that the fine tuning argument is sound while claiming that we are "handcuffed" to naturalism (which are both false since many Christians accept ToE and the FT argument has been addressed). You then say "science is hopeless" to show abiogenesis true (another mere assertion of incredulity) claiming afterward that the scientific community has abandoned abiogenesis as possible (upon which you are rebutted and shown otherwise). After that you just start in with the "insurmountable" claim.
Nowhere in your posts have you actually properly demonstrated the ToE (detailed in your own words), as taught by mainstream biologists in the relevant fields. If I am wrong and missed a post where you did please demonstrate that.
I have already addressed this elsewhere in this thread, too.
You’re methods are just a little too obvious and I pointed that out earlier in the thread, too. You’re usefulness in discussions is limited to skimming through posts, locating a theist, and then aggressively pursuing that theist with some very immature and condescending remarks. There is simply no substance to your arguments. Frankly, to tell the truth, I find your posts rather comical and laugh through much of them.
Is that how you think your Jesus would have you respond? Is that the "fruit of the spirit" you are supposed to be showing? If you're just laughing then perhaps you don't really care if your beliefs are true. Maybe you're just not paying attention b/c my responses contain lots of substance.
The philosophical arguments you pointed to in other threads did not show how
(specifically) they point to a God. All they did was CLAIM and those claims were rebutted. My response here was asking how exactly you think nature points to a deity. Is dodging
No, it is not my opinion.
Yes it is.
And you're calling me adolescent? This is childish, since this isn't the only thing I stated and went on to discuss the reasons why.
It is a fact that you are attempting to use logical fallacies to support your position, and then fallaciously trying to turn the tables (Tu Quoque fallacy), in an attempt to shift the burden of proof (another fallacy). There is no argument from ignorance in my rebuttal b/c I did not (and have not) attempted (as you are attempting) to use the lack of evidence as evidence to support an assertion (in your case the assertion is "God [whatever that means] did it").
Spewing a bunch of jumbled up gibberish does not make your argument any more accurate.
The fact that you would shrug my response off as "gibberish" is really telling of your whole attitude toward this entire discussion (that no matter what you won't be corrected or admit error). That's pretty prideful and arrogant. WWJD?
You really need to go back and study your informal logical fallacies a bit better.
Yes, I guess so if I am going to continue discussing anything with you. It seems that’s all you know.
This is more lying for Jesus b/c I've demonstrated having knowledge of other things besides only the informal logical fallacies. Carm.org (a Christian site) has a whole list of them. Why is it so hard for you to admit when you have (perhaps accidentally) used a fallacy and then retract or correct it?
Perhaps you just aren’t capable of comprehending what IDT has shown.
This is actually a funny statement b/c I was a Christian for nearly 20 years, and a strong proponent of ID for many years. I understand the arguments by Meyer, Behe, Johnson, Dembski, Wells, and others very well. I've read most of their books and argued from their POV for a long time. The difference is, I put truth and rationality above dogmatism and agenda and later realized the arguments are irrational (filled with fallacies as has been shown by many here).
I don’t recall Stephen Meyer saying that Goddit. You must be hearing things. At least you acknowledge that he identified the reasons IDT works.
Meyer has admitted elsewhere that this is his belief (some intelligent force beyond the universe - God - [for which he has no evidence] - did it) and the assertion of ID makes assumptions about what "intelligence" is (as if it is something beyond nature/supernatural). As noted before, Meyer makes lots more assumptions/mere assertions (It's nano technology! etc), none of which are substantiated. They are merely assumed. And this even came out in the Dover trial. Second, I have identified the mere assertions which amount a logical fallacious (argument from incredulity). ID does not "work" b/c it does not demonstrate it's intent. Like you are doing, it just ASSERTS by use of a fallacy that these things just cannot
be explained naturalistically (not that they have not, but that they cannot - and that is a fallacy).
Besides that, as others have noted, science does not deal in the supernatural and cannot investigate such claims. So the assertions of ID can't get off the ground b/c they are positing the supernatural.
No, what Meyer is doing here is ASSUMING a definition of "information" (as if information is something magical - when it's not), and assuming what he is trying to prove (namely that there is "specificity" - which requires a mind - in molecules). His argument amounts to nothing more than, "We notice that things are happening with DNA. It just can't be the chemistry and physics that explains it. They can't explain it to my satisfaction. Therefore magic didit." This is all completely question begging and fallacious (argument from ignorance) - putting the cart before the horse. His argument comes right down to, "It just couldn't have happened naturally, therefore magicdesigner didit."
Well, until chemistry and physics can demonstrate otherwise, you really can’t falsify the claims of IDT, can you?
ID can't be falsified, period. It is unfalsifiable b/c it's proponents (like you) have too much at stake to allow it to be falsified. Instead, the goal post is moved each time a refutation is brought forth (like when Ken Miller refuted IC in the trial). And merely pointing out specific things within evolutionary biology that are not explained (to the satisfaction of the Christian ID community who can't stand ToE to be true) while dismissing the mountain of evidence we have for
evolution is dishonest (especially since countless evolutionary biologists are professing Christians and disagree with you, Meyer, and the rest of them).
Sorry. Still not science! Have you actually researched the scientists who have responded to this assertion by Meyer? Have you actually looked into the scientific responses to these things?
Again, no need to apologize. And, no, I have done absolutely no research whatsoever regarding the arguments for and against IDT. Now you are just getting ridiculous.
This makes no sense. If you have researched the rebuttals to ID why have you not been honest enough to present them here and attempt to address them?
What a lie, you just did claim that God did it above!You asked if a machine were invented that could create another machine if I would claim that God did it. I said no. Now, if you want to back that idea all the way up to the beginning of time and ask if God somehow hand a hand in it, then I would say yes…but that’s not what you asked.
Go back and read what you wrote. You contradicted yourself by claiming, out of one side of your mouth, that you were not
claiming that God did it (or at least implying that), and then a moment later, out of the other side, saying that is exactly what you think (that God did it). So you just demonstrated a double standard. For you, it's not
OK for anyone to say "abiogenesis did it", but it is
OK for you
to say, "God did it". Hypocrisy.
Why can't you actually be honest about this? Aren't you supposed to be a follower of Christ?
Secondly, you (like Meyer) have yet to actually demonstrate what "intelligence" actually is (except to imply that it is something magical, mystical, or supernatural). The burden of proof is on you to show that. Again, it does not logically follow that b/c humans can create computer programs capable of reproducing themselves that therefore humans must have had some divine supernatural creator.
The argument may not follow for you but who are you that the world should believe you?
The "who are you" argument, really? This isn't a rational response. It just sounds like you want to makeup your own logical rules to get around the fact that you are drawing conclusions that do not follow from the premises. That's a really dishonest tactic. It's like saying, "It may not follow for you that two plus two equals 5, but who are you that the world should believe you?"
The irrational argument which does not follow:
P1- Humans can create computer programs that can reproduce themselves
C - Therefore, there must have been an intelligence that created humans like humans create computer programs
This argument is unsound because there is no necessary connection between the premises and the conclusion.
It is most certainly NOT an argument from incredulity if IDT demonstrates that it CANNOT and, so far, they have made a VERY compelling case.
No, they haven't. They have not demonstrated ALL of the potential possibilities by which biological systems could have evolved naturally. This is what would have to be shown in order to right say that, something like the bacterial flagellum, could not have come about via the processes of evolution by natural selection. They are merely ASSERTING that it is impossible to explain naturalistically (just like the ancients did with lightening and Zeus). It's completely fallacious. At best you'd have to admit you don't know how it happened. No amount of rationalizing is going to get you to justify an argument from incredulity, especially since asserting a supernatural cause is not science.
More commentary with little substance. You keep asserting that IDT is not science but you never demonstrate it by referring to any specific claims IDT makes. You just make comments that, I hate to tell you, are just personal opinions you have.
Yes, I'm sure you "hate to tell" me. Right.
Arguments from incredulity and post hoc predictions are not science. If you think they are then please demonstrate that. Even in the Dover trial, Behe reluctantly admitted that his definition of science would include astrology (and henceforth alchemy and witchcraft, etc). Is this who you are believing for a definition of what science is?
ID does not focus upon the natural world or seek to actually explain details of the "hows and why" (it posits something beyond the natural order), does not have testable hypotheses b/c we cannot test the alleged "designer" (as noted by mainstream biologists in the related fields), rarely publishes in peer reviewed journals and very rarely (if ever) modifies it's assertions from criticisms by those in the respective fields, has no ongoing research which has lead to any new discoveries, and does not build upon current scientific knowledge. I'm sorry, ID is just not science. It is conjecture toward the supernatural.
Median, if you want me to take you seriously, then tone it down with the verbal theatrics. Your posts are more of an ‘attack’ than an attempt at dialogue and I would really rather spend my time conversing about the issues than having to be your show audience.
If you want me to "tone down" then you need to start getting honest and admit that you are using logically fallacious arguments, as well as discontinue the flippant brushing off (and laughing off) of the rebuttals and expositions I have presented.