PDA

View Full Version : T'ai Chi's Explanation of the uses for ID


H3LL
7th May 2007, 01:30 AM
From this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2580869&posted=1#post2580869) thread.


For TC, assuming for a moment, in some bizarre, wacky TC world where lies and deceit constitute proper scientific evidence, that ID is actually correct.

What possible, practical use does it have?

Hint: Something in medicine would be great, as ID is attempting to replace a method that produces results.

.

My breath is bated the thread baited.

We await the flood of predictions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Predictions_from_the_hypothesis) that ID can offer the scientific community and/or the explanation of useful mechanisms enabling scientists around the world to replicate results...Away you go.

Solus
7th May 2007, 08:01 AM
Great idea, we can replace scientists with priests and prayer with medicine. I mean of course prayer works better then going to the doctor. :p

tsg
7th May 2007, 09:23 AM
Great idea, we can replace scientists with priests and prayer with medicine. I mean of course prayer works better then going to the doctor. :p

Only if you don't actually check to see if it works, though. Ya can't test god, don'tchaknow.

KingMerv00
7th May 2007, 09:42 AM
Next time i lose my keys I can blame it on sprites. After all, how could they get under my couch cusions by CHANCE ALONE?

Beleth
7th May 2007, 10:27 AM
Hmmm.

This is an interesting mental exercise, seeing if there are things ID would predict.

First thing that comes to mind would be that abiogenesis is impossible. If ID were true, scientists will never, ever be able to take simple chemical compounds, make complex nonliving compounds out of them, and then make complex living compounds out of those. But I don't know how much of a prediction that is, since the best you will ever be able to come to fulfilling it is to say that scientists haven't done it yet.

Mercutio
7th May 2007, 12:28 PM
Great idea, we can replace scientists with priests and prayer with medicine. I mean of course prayer works better then going to the doctor. :p

I thought we already had done so. I mean, after all the math, science, engineering and technology that went into saving the trapped miners, didn't W hold a press conference to thank people for their prayers? I figured it would be the kick-off to a new faith-based FEMA...

Foster Zygote
7th May 2007, 12:36 PM
I thought we already had done so. I mean, after all the math, science, engineering and technology that went into saving the trapped miners, didn't W hold a press conference to thank people for their prayers? I figured it would be the kick-off to a new faith-based FEMA...

I can just see the title of a new study: Is prayer more effective than incompetent management?

CFLarsen
7th May 2007, 12:37 PM
Next time i lose my keys I can blame it on sprites. After all, how could they get under my couch cusions by CHANCE ALONE?

Cats.

Or very big cockroaches.

JoeTheJuggler
7th May 2007, 01:13 PM
Hmmm.

This is an interesting mental exercise, seeing if there are things ID would predict.

First thing that comes to mind would be that abiogenesis is impossible. If ID were true, scientists will never, ever be able to take simple chemical compounds, make complex nonliving compounds out of them, and then make complex living compounds out of those. But I don't know how much of a prediction that is, since the best you will ever be able to come to fulfilling it is to say that scientists haven't done it yet.

I think that's a good candidate. At least it would answer "What does it take to falsify the 'scientific' theory of ID?"

Do you think believers would commit to this? I can see them coming up with work around explanations.

Civilized Worm
7th May 2007, 03:51 PM
And would those uses for ID come anywhere close to the uses we've found for Darwinian evolution?

ChristineR
7th May 2007, 04:02 PM
If ID is correct we'd expect to find some future use for all that junk and virus DNA that we've been replicating for millions of years. My own personal hope is that some of it will be seen to spell out some sort of message, like HELL YES I EXIST!

Wowbagger
7th May 2007, 04:07 PM
If ID is correct we'd expect to find some future use for all that junk and virus DNA that we've been replicating for millions of years. My own personal hope is that some of it will be seen to spell out some sort of message, like HELL YES I EXIST!
Such evidence is documented here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81569 ;)
(It's in the Humor section, so don't take it too seriously.)

T'ai Chi
7th May 2007, 04:11 PM
Since I have so many on ignore, who will be the first non-mod to post so that I will be able to see what they write? :D

T'ai Chi
7th May 2007, 04:14 PM
There are simply signs of intelligence to detect in the universe, like in archeology, forensics, SETI, cryptography, and some others. Wherever one can try to detect it, let's try. Let's not be limited by the limited that say 'You can study everything, except X.'

That route simply won't work. :)

Mojo
7th May 2007, 04:21 PM
Since I have so many on ignore, who will be the first non-mod to post so that I will be able to see what they write? :D


If you go to "Options" and set "Hide threads by Members on your Ignore List" to "yes", You won't have to worry about any threads unless they're started by you or a moderator.

I said, if you...

Oh, never mind...

ReligionStudent
7th May 2007, 04:21 PM
Um, all those people that cannot get their brains around evolution could finally get those soft high school science teacher jobs.

Czarcasm
7th May 2007, 04:45 PM
Since I have so many on ignore, who will be the first non-mod to post so that I will be able to see what they write? :D
You have all the mods on "ignore"?!?
Why the h**l do you even post here, other than to get a rise out of the new people and to see your own name over and over and over again?

On the off chance that I am one of the many he's "ignoring", could some newer poster please quote this in a post so that he could see it?
Thank you.

clerihew80
7th May 2007, 04:50 PM
Tai Chi - (in case you've got Czarcasm on ignore):

You have all the mods on "ignore"?!?
Why the h**l do you even post here, other than to get a rise out of the new people and to see your own name over and over and over again?

On the off chance that I am one of the many he's "ignoring", could some newer poster please quote this in a post so that he could see it?
Thank you.

H3LL
7th May 2007, 04:55 PM
So far TC has shown us, according to the scientific method:

Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from hypothesis and theory):
ID will make it so that you have no option other than to ignore questioners and questions.

:D

Two posts and two evasions so far TC........We're waiting.

.

ReligionStudent
7th May 2007, 04:57 PM
In case you have clerihew80 and Czarcasm ignored Tai Chi

Tai Chi - (in case you've got Czarcasm on ignore):

Originally Posted by Czarcasm
You have all the mods on "ignore"?!?
Why the h**l do you even post here, other than to get a rise out of the new people and to see your own name over and over and over again?

On the off chance that I am one of the many he's "ignoring", could some newer poster please quote this in a post so that he could see it?
Thank you.

H3LL
7th May 2007, 05:00 PM
In Signature:
In the beginning there was nothing. And the Lord said "Let There Be Light!"
And still there was nothing, but at least now you could see it.

:D

.

Beleth
7th May 2007, 05:01 PM
There are simply signs of intelligence to detect in the universe, like in archeology, forensics, SETI, cryptography, and some others. Wherever one can try to detect it, let's try.
Three of those four things have something in common. Actually, they have two things in common.

1) They were made by creatures on Earth
2) They have been shown to exist.

The odd man out (SETI of course) has not produced any results. There are two potential reasons for this:

1) There is no intelligence to be found within our time-cone
2) We have misinterpreted signs of intelligence as not-signs of intelligence

A third choice, "they're hiding from us," is actually a form of the second reason.

ReligionStudent
7th May 2007, 05:16 PM
Three of those four things have something in common. Actually, they have two things in common.

1) They were made by creatures on Earth
2) They have been shown to exist.

The odd man out (SETI of course) has not produced any results. There are two potential reasons for this:

1) There is no intelligence to be found within our time-cone
2) We have misinterpreted signs of intelligence as not-signs of intelligence

A third choice, "they're hiding from us," is actually a form of the second reason.


We may also have just missed some signal through SETI.

Mobyseven
7th May 2007, 05:33 PM
We may also have just missed some signal through SETI.

The real third option is the one T'ai Chi favours:

3) We have them on ignore.

articulett
7th May 2007, 06:15 PM
Great idea, we can replace scientists with priests and prayer with medicine. I mean of course prayer works better then going to the doctor. :p

And, so what if it didn't. It's all part of some grander plan by someone far more intelligent than us mere humans-- plus, you live forever anyhow...what's an occasional death here and there.

Death just means you start your "happily ever after" sooner, right?

scotth
7th May 2007, 06:15 PM
If ID is correct we'd expect to find some future use for all that junk and virus DNA that we've been replicating for millions of years. My own personal hope is that some of it will be seen to spell out some sort of message, like HELL YES I EXIST!

This gives me the idea to start a chain email saying something like scientists discover message from God in DNA. Discovery being suppressed. Make up some buzzword mashup of details that are deliberately self contradictory. Watch it spread like wildfire.

Wowbagger
7th May 2007, 06:17 PM
There are simply signs of intelligence to detect in the universe, like in archeology, forensics, SETI, cryptography, and some others. Wherever one can try to detect it, let's try. Let's not be limited by the limited that say 'You can study everything, except X.'

That route simply won't work. :)
One of the problems of this claim is that ID never even tries to find out anything about the nature of the Designer.
Science may not know everything about the origins of life or the universe, but we strive to find out all that we can.
That is one of the fundamental differences between science and pseudoscience: pursuit of knowledge, and testability.

Forensics - We know an awful lot about the nature of the people or things we are investigating, before we deduce what it created or not. And, if we don't know everything, we strive to find out more. Thus, it is a valid science.

Archeology - Same thing. (except with ancient artifacts that are just slightly sharpened rocks: That is often flat-out guess work.)

Cryptography Same thing as forensics.

SETI - Different, for the very reason that we don't really know what the flark we are supposed to look for in extraterrestrial intelligence. SETI is all subjective guess work, and very little (if any) science. This is more akin to ID. But, at least they don't claim they found any intelligence at every little "funny signal" that suits their fancy. In fact, they never found anything at all, yet.

Intelligent Design - Without even trying to know the nature of the Designer, we cannot test for its existence, nor test if something was Designed by it or not. ID is subjective guesswork, not an empirical measurement, just like SETI. And, to make matters worse, their history of false-positives is rather embarrassing.

Bring us evidence of ID, and we will all change our minds. Here are some things to look for: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81569

T'ai Chi
7th May 2007, 06:19 PM
Beleth, the 4 things have something in common alright; they involve detecting intelligences. :)

ReligionStudent
7th May 2007, 06:32 PM
One of the problems of this claim is that ID never even tries to find out anything about the nature of the Designer.
Science may not know everything about the origins of life or the universe, but we strive to find out all that we can.
That is one of the fundamental differences between science and pseudoscience: pursuit of knowledge, and testability.

Forensics - We know an awful lot about the nature of the people or things we are investigating, before we deduce what it created or not. And, if we don't know everything, we strive to find out more. Thus, it is a valid science.

Archeology - Same thing. (except with ancient artifacts that are just slightly sharpened rocks: That is often flat-out guess work.)

Cryptography Same thing as forensics.

SETI - Different, for the very reason that we don't really know what the flark we are supposed to look for in extraterrestrial intelligence. SETI is all subjective guess work, and very little (if any) science. This is more akin to ID. But, at least they don't claim they found any intelligence at every little "funny signal" that suits their fancy. In fact, they never found anything at all, yet.

Intelligent Design - Without even trying to know the nature of the Designer, we cannot test for its existence, nor test if something was Designed by it or not. ID is subjective guesswork, not an empirical measurement, just like SETI. And, to make matters worse, their history of false-positives is rather embarrassing.

Bring us evidence of ID, and we will all change our minds. Here are some things to look for: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81569


There is a lot of stuff known about lithics, and constant experimentation, I don't know if I would call it guess work

articulett
7th May 2007, 06:35 PM
If ID is correct, then we can refine and hone communications with said designer and find ways to curry favor--maybe we can get him to grow back amputated limbs and tell us where the coolest fossils are buried and just give us a step by step of the twists and turns in the Genome as it mutated across eons. We've already got that #2 merge thing that happened with us and our chimp ancestors, but it would be great to get the fine details...it was a pretty big jump in our speciation--

Of course, if ID was true, we'd have to hold the designer accountable for the many flaws and waste. And I want to ask him/her/it/they why so gosh darn many spermatazoa. I mean that really threw me off and had me going with the whole evolution thing--the suffering and vestigal organs and fossil DNA too. What a trickster, that designer is. Maybe the intelligent designer is a little daft? He did make creationists in his image, I've heard, so the daftness could well explain what we observe.

articulett
7th May 2007, 06:46 PM
This gives me the idea to start a chain email saying something like scientists discover message from God in DNA. Discovery being suppressed. Make up some buzzword mashup of details that are deliberately self contradictory. Watch it spread like wildfire.

Well start making up some alternate bible code thing for the letters G A T C Because I don't think they spell anything... But you could break them down into amino acids and let the amino acids stand for various letters of the alphabet and then run it through various computer programs (Paul A is good at those) until it says something of prophetic bibl-ish sounding interest. Computer folks would be the new prophets, because only they could decode the hidden messages...

ChristineR
7th May 2007, 06:53 PM
What savage hell have I wrought?:eek: You know if you guys went through with this and found a good match in your "code" to some interesting phrase then people would be all over it.

Use Hebrew--those pesky vowels make it so much harder to match random fluff to something that looks interesting.

Wowbagger
7th May 2007, 07:10 PM
There is a lot of stuff known about lithics, and constant experimentation, I don't know if I would call it guess workIt is educated guess work, perhaps.

Wowbagger
7th May 2007, 07:12 PM
Beleth, the 4 things have something in common alright; they involve detecting intelligences. :)
True. But, some of them are more subjective than others. The more subjective, the less scientific.

JoeTheJuggler
7th May 2007, 07:21 PM
So how do you falsify a claim that something was intelligently designed?

SETI has been mentioned. We can look for all sorts of characteristics of perceived signal that might point towards an intelligence--repeated sequences, some encoding of pi, etc. Before SETI, in 1967 at Cambridge, astronomers found a radio signal with a clear series of quick pulses, each equally spaced and of equal duration. No one had seen anything like it in nature before. Clearly a sign of intelligence? That hypothesis was eventually ruled out when we learned about pulsars.

I think the lesson from this is that if you can find a natural cause for something that exhibits order, you have falsified the hypothesis that it was caused by an intelligence.

In biology, the theory of evolution explains the complexity of life forms. No need for ID. No need to think every pulsar found is a signal from an alien intelligence.

H3LL
7th May 2007, 07:49 PM
...dribble...

TC's third post in this thread and still nowhere near any explanation of the practical uses for ID.

Foster Zygote
7th May 2007, 07:53 PM
You have all the mods on "ignore"?!?
Why the h**l do you even post here, other than to get a rise out of the new people and to see your own name over and over and over again?

On the off chance that I am one of the many he's "ignoring", could some newer poster please quote this in a post so that he could see it?
Thank you.

Well he can't put the mods on ignore. However he has lamented his inability to do so in the past.

CF Larsen is convinced that he actually has no one on ignore because he couldn't stand to not read about himself in other's posts. I wouldn't be surprised if he is correct.

Most intellectually honest members of this forum put people on ignore for behaving in a chronically offensive way. T'ai Chi, on the other hand, if he really does have anyone on ignore, seems to do so for the offense of arguing successfully against some claim of his. Let me reword that: For arguing successfully against some article that T'ai Chi stated was "interesting". He rarely ever actually states a position. He remains vague and non committal seemingly so that he can later claim "I never said that" if the going gets rough. He'd much rather attack other people's positions than have to defend his own.

Czarcasm
7th May 2007, 08:03 PM
Well he can't put the mods on ignore. However he has lamented his inability to do so in the past.

CF Larsen is convinced that he actually has no one on ignore because he couldn't stand to not read about himself in other's posts. I wouldn't be surprised if he is correct.

Most intellectually honest members of this forum put people on ignore for behaving in a chronically offensive way. T'ai Chi, on the other hand, if he really does have anyone on ignore, seems to do so for the offense of arguing successfully against some claim of his. Let me reword that: For arguing successfully against some article that T'ai Chi stated was "interesting". He rarely ever actually states a position. He remains vague and non committal seemingly so that he can later claim "I never said that" if the going gets rough. He'd much rather attack other people's positions than have to defend his own.

That sounds reasonable. Having over 10,000 posts, most of which not showing any hard opinions, tells me that his ego is so overblown he probably does a search on his own name several times a day. How sad that he is ashamed to post his own opinions, though.

Foster Zygote
7th May 2007, 08:36 PM
That sounds reasonable. Having over 10,000 posts, most of which not showing any hard opinions, tells me that his ego is so overblown he probably does a search on his own name several times a day. How sad that he is ashamed to post his own opinions, though.

There might be some support for this in the form of his website, at least the part where he talks about evolution. It has a certain "Look at me admonishing the famous scientists for their silly mistakes" quality to it. He never mentions that the quotes he presents are taken grossly out of context.

Jackalgirl
7th May 2007, 09:06 PM
Beleth, the 4 things have something in common alright; they involve detecting intelligences. :)

ID is not about detecting or studying intelligences (lower case). ID postulates the origin of life (including, but not limited to intelligence) as being the result of an Intelligent Designer rather than random mutation + natural selection.

We already know that there are intelligences in the universe: us, for example. We already know that those intelligences make stuff. Forensics, cryptography, archaology (and other flavors of anthroplogy) are all studies involving either the existance, development, or activies of us. None of these things prove (or even lend credence to) ID. Sure, you could say "if we can indirectly study an intelligence (us) by looking at the things we leave behind, surely we can study God by studying what It left behind!" And that would be true, assuming that you accepted the premise that life, and Creation, were left behind by God. ID tries to establish that this premise is a good one, based on the "irreduceable complexity" of life forms on this planet. It fails, however, because it has yet to provide any evidence that makes this premise more compelling, or better supported, than random mutation + natural selection.

So no, none of the four things you mentioned will in any way lend credence to ID, because they are simply "studies of" or "searches for". None of them suggest, or prove, that the idea that "made by an intelligent designer" is more probable than "random mutation + natural selection".

I have been trying to think of ways to predict something that would support ID over Natural Selection, and honestly I can't. This is probably because I am not a biologist, so I can't think of specific examples of something that would be more likely the work of an Intelligent Designer than it would be the work of Natural Selection. This is, essentially, what H3LL is asking you, as I understand it.

ReligionStudent
7th May 2007, 09:17 PM
I think Tai Chi should post his block list so we can all know who is on it.

I hope he gets to read this so he can think it over.

TriangleMan
7th May 2007, 09:43 PM
From this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2580869&posted=1#post2580869) thread.

My breath is bated the thread baited.

We await the flood of predictions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Predictions_from_the_hypothesis) that ID can offer the scientific community and/or the explanation of useful mechanisms enabling scientists around the world to replicate results...Away you go.

Just in case TC has H3LL on ignore. There is no reason why he'd have me on his ignore list.

Okay TC, please provide the information that H3LL requested. I too am interested to see what your answers will be.

Apathia
7th May 2007, 10:06 PM
Beleth, the 4 things have something in common alright; they involve detecting intelligences. :)

I think I'm on TC's ignore list. But anyway, does this suggest a new role for Science? Gone would be the days of investigating the structure of the physical world and its processes. Instead we'd embark upon a whole new venture of "Spot the ID." (I know what someone is going to do with that. Be my guest.) Science will look for the traces of the intelligent designer(s) and try to understand from them the mind of the whoever/whatever.
There would be no technological applications from this venture. Just an abiding humility that we know Bleep.

In other words, Science will be reabsorbed into Philosophy, and maybe Philosophy into Theology.

For some it will be very interesting, for others it will be downright Medieval.

Slimething
7th May 2007, 10:47 PM
Gone would be the days of investigating the structure of the physical world and its processes. Instead we'd embark upon a whole new venture of "Spot the ID."

This may not be so easy after all. Some believe that fossils were planted either by god to test our faith or by satan to test our faith. We could have a really good time debating which discoveries were intelligently designed by which super-friend.

One act play:
Curtain rises on a pastoral setting. A virile young priest is speaking with an aged deacon, regarding the beasts of the field.
"Oh, but see the supple textures, the flowing contours...obviously a work of the devil!", said the priest, busily searching under his robes for his staff.
"Nay, its purity of essence and its ephemeral humours indicate that it is the work of the almighty." said the octogenarian deacon, trying to ignore what the priest is doing.
"What, the sheep?" asked the young lad.
Curtain closes.

CFLarsen
7th May 2007, 11:27 PM
Since I have so many on ignore, who will be the first non-mod to post so that I will be able to see what they write? :D

You sure don't have me on ignore.

Mobyseven
8th May 2007, 12:42 AM
There is a lot of stuff known about lithics, and constant experimentation, I don't know if I would call it guess work

My understanding is that SETI mainly searches for patterns that shouldn't (for any reason we know yet) be there. A repeated series of prime numbers being transmitted would be an example of something they are looking for.

To put it another way: If SETI did discover a repeated series of prime numbers out there in the cosmos, it wouldn't necessarily be proof of intelligent life. But it'd sure be something danged interesting!

Correa Neto
8th May 2007, 04:31 AM
...snip...Sure, you could say "if we can indirectly study an intelligence (us) by looking at the things we leave behind, surely we can study God by studying what It left behind!" ...snip...
OH NO!
The rapture already happened!:jaw-dropp

Sorry, I could not resist...

Apathia
8th May 2007, 06:23 AM
This may not be so easy after all. Some believe that fossils were planted either by god to test our faith or by satan to test our faith. We could have a really good time debating which discoveries were intelligently designed by which super-friend.

One act play:
Curtain rises on a pastoral setting. A virile young priest is speaking with an aged deacon, regarding the beasts of the field.
"Oh, but see the supple textures, the flowing contours...obviously a work of the devil!", said the priest, busily searching under his robes for his staff.
"Nay, its purity of essence and its ephemeral humours indicate that it is the work of the almighty." said the octogenarian deacon, trying to ignore what the priest is doing.
"What, the sheep?" asked the young lad.
Curtain closes.

:eek:

Years ago in a Bible class, somebody asked the teacher why God created lions, tigers, bears, and other beasties that kill to eat.
The teacher answered that before the Fall of Man, all animals were vegetarian, but after Man sinned, satan changed their nature and form.

My college Physics Professor was a devout Christian. He told us in class once that the interface of his faith and Science only bothered him with the nagging question of possibility of angels or demons messing with his research.
Imagine trickster demons doing things to the data.
Is that what happened with Cold Fusion?

:lol2:

tsg
8th May 2007, 06:34 AM
There is no reason why he'd have me on his ignore list.

There is now.

Wowbagger
8th May 2007, 07:43 AM
Yo, T'ai Chi, my hummus-loving buddy,

When are you going to give us some of the uses of Intelligent Design? (in regard to it being used as an alternative to Evolution, not in those other things: forensics, etc.)

Wowbagger
8th May 2007, 08:17 AM
One more point to make: None of the other uses for ID claim they are a alternatives for evolution, at all.

Forensics - Never makes any claim that it is a substitute for any other sciences. In fact, evolution is relied upon to improve forensic tools, DNA testing being the most obvious one.

Archeology - No archeologists claim that their study is a substitute for evolution. In fact, if you ask most of them, they will point out evidence of how their subject matter had evolved.

Cryptography - Still no claims of being an alternative to anything. And cryptography has evolved over time, with the evolution of, and increase in, computing power.

SETI - Almost entirely a subjective study, but at least they do not make any claims that they are working on an alternative to any other theories. In fact, if ET life forms are found, most SETI scientists will say they likely emerged as a product of an evolutionary process.

Intelligent Design - This does something very different from the other examples. It makes claims that it is superior to another scientific theory. And yet, that claim relies entirely on subjective judgment, unlike the first three examples above.

It seems your life-boat strategy has failed.

Correa Neto
8th May 2007, 09:43 AM
Well, I don't think he is saying ID can substitute any of those disciplines/sciences. I may be wrong, but it seems he's just trying to use the old "clock-without-a-maker" argument.
Forensics - someone commited the crime and with some purpose, the crime can't commit itself...
Archeology - someone had to build those temples and with some purpose, pyramids don't build themselves...
Cryptography - someone had to create the code and with some purpose, codes are not created spontaneously...
SETI - a bit more cloudly, maybe because all we have is the possiblity -backed by hard science- ETs are out there and we can somehow listen while they chat. Thus since a creator is a possibility...

Honestly, there so many holes and fallacies in this line of reasoning that I just can't consider it to be one of his brightest moments...

Beleth
8th May 2007, 10:21 AM
Beleth, the 4 things have something in common alright; they involve detecting intelligences. :)
Actually not. SETI alone is about detecting the existence of intelligences; the other three are about describing previously-detected intelligence.

tsg
8th May 2007, 10:56 AM
Actually not. SETI alone is about detecting the existence of intelligences;

Just to clarify, detecting intelligences, a kind of which is already known to exist (ie. us) in other places.

ID on the other hand, is about detecting previously unknown intelligence using evidence that already has an explanation that doesn't require it.

Wowbagger
8th May 2007, 12:36 PM
Well, I don't think he is saying ID can substitute any of those disciplines/sciences.Maybe not T'ai Chi, but that is what the ID movement is trying to claim: The Evolution is too weak an explanation for all the life forms we see. And, they try to insert ID as a substitute.
The fact that the substitute explains less about the life form than what it is trying to replace does not seem to bother them.

Correa Neto
8th May 2007, 01:53 PM
"Feel good" sensations are all that some people need to accept an idea. Why should anyone care about such things as evidence and critical thinking?

I may be wrong, but I seem to remember Interesting Ian saying something like "if there is no meaning, no purpose, then its all a great waste and I can't stand it".

tsg
8th May 2007, 01:57 PM
"Feel good" sensations are all that some people need to accept an idea. Why should anyone care about such things as evidence and critical thinking?

I may be wrong, but I seem to remember Interesting Ian saying something like "if there is no meaning, no purpose, then its all a great waste and I can't stand it".

Interesting Ian also said that the existence of fake psychics made the existence of real psychics more likely.

There's no accounting for a twisted world view.

thaiboxerken
8th May 2007, 02:20 PM
Just in case TC has H3LL on ignore. There is no reason why he'd have me on his ignore list.

Well, that was until you posted this:


Okay TC, please provide the information that H3LL requested. I too am interested to see what your answers will be.

Now you're on his ignore list for sure. :D

ReligionStudent
8th May 2007, 03:30 PM
I wonder if this thread only has like two comments for him.

It must be like looking at the night sky with really dark sunglasses on.

articulett
8th May 2007, 03:47 PM
I think Tai Chi should post his block list so we can all know who is on it.

I hope he gets to read this so he can think it over.

Oh, I think T'ai is much to busy dashing off banal little posts to read much of anything else. I suspect he may read one word for every 1000 he writes...and only enough to get his ego polished for some more spewings. I suspect he thinks he's tossing of deep questions and words of great wisdom--without a clue as to how clueless he sounds nor a clue that it is he who needs to be learning--not "teaching".

T'ai Chi
8th May 2007, 03:56 PM
Beleth, say you come across a stone. You don't yet know if an intelligence created it as a tool or if it is a random chunk of rock that just looks like it might be a tool.

Ditto with coming across a dead body. You don't know if it was a suicide or if there were clues that an intelligence was involved in a murder.

In each case you have to detect the involvement of an intelligence.

Magyar
8th May 2007, 04:53 PM
Beleth, say you come across a stone. You don't yet know if an intelligence created it as a tool or if it is a random chunk of rock that just looks like it might be a tool.

Ditto with coming across a dead body. You don't know if it was a suicide or if there were clues that an intelligence was involved in a murder.

In each case you have to detect the involvement of an intelligence.

It is thinking like this that makes me truly believe that sometime in the near future medicine will discover that religious belief is caused by a form of metal illness caused by some kind of brain deformity.

Wowbagger
8th May 2007, 04:53 PM
Beleth, say you come across a stone. You don't yet know if an intelligence created it as a tool or if it is a random chunk of rock that just looks like it might be a tool.

Ditto with coming across a dead body. You don't know if it was a suicide or if there were clues that an intelligence was involved in a murder.

In each case you have to detect the involvement of an intelligence.
But, in each case, you already know something about the existence of the intelligent creatures!!!

Intelligent Design is different, for several reasons, but primarily because it can't possibly be able to know anything about the Designer!

T'ai Chi
8th May 2007, 04:59 PM
I'd love to have a mental (note the correct spelling..) illness and brain deformity like Newton. :)

ChristineR
8th May 2007, 05:07 PM
I'd love to have a mental (note the correct spelling..) illness and brain deformity like Newton. :)

I sort of doubt that.

Wowbagger
8th May 2007, 05:14 PM
I'd love to have a mental (note the correct spelling..) illness and brain deformity like Newton. :)
It doesn't take a special brain to be brilliant. All you need, to start with, is to be able to separate bunk arguments (from fallacies, etc.) from good ones. And, to understand the difference between "imperical" and "subjective".

There is a bit more to do, from that point forward, but that is a good way to start thinking like Newton. And, anyone can do it, if they are willing to.

Beleth
8th May 2007, 05:57 PM
In each case you have to detect the involvement of an intelligence.
Exactly my point!

Detect the involvement. Not detect the existence. Forensics detects involvement. SETI detects existence.

Apathia
8th May 2007, 07:54 PM
The tools of ID are going to revolutionize Science.

With them we will be able to detect the advanced mathematical and physical technologies of the ancients as now only hinted in the "frames" of ancient cave drawings. With them we'll at last be able to recognize how common geological features are the imprints of space dragons. Darwin will be completely discredited in the light of proof that evolution is mathematically impossible. Sacred Geometry will be taught in high school and "Heart Math" will be a part of sex education. We will able to dismiss the threat of Global Warming because there are higher powers at work in the atmosphere.
An essential part of the new ID paradigm will be Conspiracy Detection. We uncover the complex plots behind history's big events and the disapperance of the bees.

My Ex-Girlfriend will be completely vindicated in her belief in fairies.
:dc_hmm:

TjW
8th May 2007, 07:57 PM
If ID is correct we'd expect to find some future use for all that junk and virus DNA that we've been replicating for millions of years. My own personal hope is that some of it will be seen to spell out some sort of message, like HELL YES I EXIST!

"We apologize for the inconvenience"

CFLarsen
8th May 2007, 11:16 PM
Beleth, say you come across a stone. You don't yet know if an intelligence created it as a tool or if it is a random chunk of rock that just looks like it might be a tool.

Ditto with coming across a dead body. You don't know if it was a suicide or if there were clues that an intelligence was involved in a murder.

In each case you have to detect the involvement of an intelligence.

Ye Olde Watch-in-the-Desert argument. (http://skepticreport.com/creationism/watchdesert.htm)

Sheesh, come up with something new.

Mobyseven
9th May 2007, 12:38 AM
Beleth, say you come across a stone. You don't yet know if an intelligence created it as a tool or if it is a random chunk of rock that just looks like it might be a tool.

Ditto with coming across a dead body. You don't know if it was a suicide or if there were clues that an intelligence was involved in a murder.

In each case you have to detect the involvement of an intelligence.

...that still doesn't answer the question presented in the OP.

Slimething
9th May 2007, 01:29 AM
...that still doesn't answer the question presented in the OP.

I know! I know! You have to ID the body, right? :rolleyes:

Perhaps, that''s as close as we will get for an answer from tie cheat.

Schmitt.
9th May 2007, 03:44 AM
There are simply signs of intelligence to detect in the universe, like in archeology, forensics, SETI, cryptography, and some others.Indeed there are. Why don't IDists bother to actually understand what the methods used in those fields are? Have any of those fields picked up alleged tools used by IDists (such as irreducible and specified complexity) to detect design? They haven't; why not?

No one's saying that you can't look for ID in organisms. The problem is that your results need to be reproducible. Given the premise of ID it needs to be able to distinguish between ID and nonID. The arguments put forth need to be well supported and based on a web of evidence; they need to explain more data, or more parsimoniously explain it, than nonID theories (ie., biological evolution). It needs to generate new research and open up new fields. You were asked in the OP to present in what ways, hypothetically, ID could be useful: ID also needs to make predictions to be so much as a scientific hypothesis.

ID is ridiculed in part because it tries to do escape the need for scientific evidence. Much of ID seems to be arguments against an existing scientific theory, a theory which it barely even bothers trying to challenge with an alternative hypothesis. In all its time not a single useful research programme has developed from its techniques, few as they are. The techniques devised by IDists are terrible and obviously flawed. The ideas are rarely novel, and regularly are extremely old and thoroughly well debunked.

Yet like the psychic declaring they aren't the fraud other psychics are IDists declare that we should keep an open mind about the potential of ID being detected in biology, no matter how many decades, how many name changes are employed by fraudsters in perpetuating pseudoscientific creationism. Fine.

Do something at least vaguely resembling science and show it is.

In the meantime though the OP asks a very simple question.

H3LL
9th May 2007, 03:45 AM
Great...Here we go...

At last....

Detailed information, explanations and evidence of the uses for ID as told by TC:

Beleth, say you come across a stone. You don't yet know if an intelligence created it as a tool or if it is a random chunk of rock that just looks like it might be a tool.

Ditto with coming across a dead body. You don't know if it was a suicide or if there were clues that an intelligence was involved in a murder.

In each case you have to detect the involvement of an intelligence.

I'd love to have a mental (note the correct spelling..) illness and brain deformity like Newton. :)


Aaaaawwww!

Sorry...My mistake...Nothing to see here.

TC, any chance of addressing the OP or are you just going to wander off in some vague tangent hoping nobody will notice?

.

TriangleMan
9th May 2007, 03:56 AM
Okay TC, please provide the information that H3LL requested. I too am interested to see what your answers will be.

I'm sorry TC but your previous two posts did not address what this thread is about. Please respond to the request made by H3LL as I am interested in your answers.

Belz...
9th May 2007, 04:40 AM
Beleth, say you come across a stone. You don't yet know if an intelligence created it as a tool or if it is a random chunk of rock that just looks like it might be a tool.

Ditto with coming across a dead body. You don't know if it was a suicide or if there were clues that an intelligence was involved in a murder.

In each case you have to detect the involvement of an intelligence.

Then pray tell, what are the criteria for detecting such an involvement ?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
9th May 2007, 05:20 AM
We await the flood of predictions that ID can offer the scientific community and/or the explanation of useful mechanisms enabling scientists around the world to replicate results...Away you go.
Since Intelligent Design is based on analogy from human design, I predict that there will be lots of biological stuff that is hacked, kludgy, badly designed, busted, and Rube Goldbergesque.

How did I do?

~~ Paul

Correa Neto
9th May 2007, 05:32 AM
Ye Olde Watch-in-the-Desert argument. (http://skepticreport.com/creationism/watchdesert.htm)

Sheesh, come up with something new.
Impossible.

ID redux: "clock-without-a-maker". They never managed to go beyond this. Pattern and complexity, according to these people, imply in design, intention, will- a creator. And guess what? They can't go beyond this.

As for the "Newton believed in god" line, its just another major fallacy. Being religious or not is mostly a matter of cultural background. I wonder if he would be religious nowdays.

scotth
9th May 2007, 05:43 AM
Since Intelligent Design is based on analogy from human design, I predict that there will be lots of biological stuff that is hacked, kludgy, badly designed, busted, and Rube Goldbergesque.

How did I do?

~~ Paul

I'd say excellent. You've provided more than an other ID proponent to date.

aggle-rithm
9th May 2007, 05:53 AM
Since Intelligent Design is based on analogy from human design, I predict that there will be lots of biological stuff that is hacked, kludgy, badly designed, busted, and Rube Goldbergesque.

How did I do?

~~ Paul

On the other hand, if it were NOT intelligently designed, the genome would look like spaghetti code, thrown together from a bunch of different sources without any regard to how they work together. The things that don't work together at all would simply not be used.

And that's exactly what it looks like.

Klaymore
9th May 2007, 07:46 AM
"We apologize for the inconvenience"

"We are recombining to serve you better!"

"Younng HARDKORE bukake farrrm SLUTZ want to MEAT u!"

"Mary Lied"

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
9th May 2007, 10:04 AM
On the other hand, if it were NOT intelligently designed, the genome would look like spaghetti code, thrown together from a bunch of different sources without any regard to how they work together. The things that don't work together at all would simply not be used.
Uh oh! It appears we can't tell the difference between something designed by humans and something designed by naturalistic processes. Oh wait, no wonder, humans are a naturalistic process.

Except, to be fair, humans do try to remove stuff that isn't being used. So that's evidence against biological systems being designed by humans or human-like entities.

~~ Paul

CFLarsen
9th May 2007, 10:11 AM
Uh oh! It appears we can't tell the difference between something designed by humans and something designed by naturalistic processes. Oh wait, no wonder, humans are a naturalistic process.

Except, to be fair, humans do try to remove stuff that isn't being used. So that's evidence against biological systems being designed by humans or human-like entities.

There is, of course, one notable exception (http://www.beautyriot.com/stuff/images/articles/approve/1919_1616_Alba-Jessica-120703-03-400-lo.jpg).

That's got to be made by divine intervention.

ChristineR
9th May 2007, 10:24 AM
That was made by plastic surgeons, makeup artists, and hairdressers.

CFLarsen
9th May 2007, 10:29 AM
That was made by plastic surgeons, makeup artists, and hairdressers.

Nobody is that good at their job.

aggle-rithm
9th May 2007, 10:55 AM
Uh oh! It appears we can't tell the difference between something designed by humans and something designed by naturalistic processes. Oh wait, no wonder, humans are a naturalistic process.

Except, to be fair, humans do try to remove stuff that isn't being used. So that's evidence against biological systems being designed by humans or human-like entities.

~~ Paul

In my active programming projects, I've probably got thousands of lines of code that aren't being used. At some point, I'll decide a function call isn't necessary, and I'll remove the reference to it, but the original code remains. That's because it's not worth the trouble to go in and try to figure out if there's some other code somewhere else that depends on it. It's easier to leave it in there.

This type of behavior in a programming environment I wouldn't really consider "design" because it's more of a reaction than something that is planned. Although I, as a sentient human being, created each individual line of code, the way it gets configured over time (if I'm not careful) can be considered a mindless process.

And that's if there's just ONE programmer maintaining the code. The more people you add to it, the more mindless the process becomes.

aggle-rithm
9th May 2007, 10:58 AM
There is, of course, one notable exception (http://www.beautyriot.com/stuff/images/articles/approve/1919_1616_Alba-Jessica-120703-03-400-lo.jpg).

That's got to be made by divine intervention.

God's pretty cruel, creating something like that and then making it unaccessible to most of the population!

ETA: Inaccessible? Unacceptable?

CFLarsen
9th May 2007, 11:22 AM
God's pretty cruel, creating something like that and then making it unaccessible to most of the population!

ETA: Inaccessible? Unacceptable?

Whatever. God is indeed cruel.

articulett
13th May 2007, 01:21 PM
Beleth, say you come across a stone. You don't yet know if an intelligence created it as a tool or if it is a random chunk of rock that just looks like it might be a tool.

Ditto with coming across a dead body. You don't know if it was a suicide or if there were clues that an intelligence was involved in a murder.

In each case you have to detect the involvement of an intelligence.

Bodies do die without any involvement of any intelligence. It happens everyday.
It's been happening for eons. In fact, 100% of all life forms die--most without any intelligent involvement whatsoever. :)

Civilized Worm
13th May 2007, 02:05 PM
Beleth, say you come across a stone. You don't yet know if an intelligence created it as a tool or if it is a random chunk of rock that just looks like it might be a tool.

Ditto with coming across a dead body. You don't know if it was a suicide or if there were clues that an intelligence was involved in a murder.

In each case you have to detect the involvement of an intelligence.


And has anyone managed to detect the involvement of an intelligence in creating the universe? No.


As for the "Newton believed in god" line, its just another major fallacy. Being religious or not is mostly a matter of cultural background. I wonder if he would be religious nowdays.


He was also an alchemist, what does that prove?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
13th May 2007, 02:26 PM
In my active programming projects, I've probably got thousands of lines of code that aren't being used. At some point, I'll decide a function call isn't necessary, and I'll remove the reference to it, but the original code remains. That's because it's not worth the trouble to go in and try to figure out if there's some other code somewhere else that depends on it. It's easier to leave it in there.
That explains bloatware, then. :D

~~ Paul

Mojo
13th May 2007, 03:10 PM
He was also an alchemist, what does that prove?That he believed in things that are nonsense.

Wheezebucket
13th May 2007, 08:58 PM
I wish people would stop making threads for this guy and asking him to reapeat himself over and over and over and over and over. He hasn't had anything new to say, you know, *ever*, so why expect it now?

Slimething
13th May 2007, 09:23 PM
I wish people would stop making threads for this guy and asking him to reapeat himself over and over and over and over and over. He hasn't had anything new to say, you know, *ever*, so why expect it now?

Hmmm...Interesting! :D

H3LL
14th May 2007, 02:49 AM
I wish people would stop making threads for this guy and asking him to reapeat himself over and over and over and over and over. He hasn't had anything new to say, you know, *ever*, so why expect it now?

I wish it wasn't necessary.

Not everyone here is familiar with TC and there are many new members, some of which may take his "interesting" posts at face value.

He is all over the forums like a nasty rash and will pop a post without evidence almost anywhere and then run away.

His ID claims are particularly virulent as he repeats claims over and over, such as his claim that evolution is random, despite the fact that repeatedly his claims have been utterly destroyed.

For me, I feel that the OP addresses a fundamental question for ID. ID seeks to replace a theory that has been shown, in a practical way, to work; Particularly in medicine.

Even if ID were true, how would anyone use it?

I intended to pursue TC to answer...
he has not...
I doubt he is capable...
and I have been warned off from chasing him as it derails other threads (as if TC doesn't).

Others, if they feel my point is valid, may want to refer him to this thread as a PS to their normal replies. That is up to them.

TC is the most well-fed troll that we have had in a long time. I doubt it is going to change anytime soon as he has a lot of time to scavenge and his posts cannot be left to stand unchallenged.

I hope that answers why I started the thread. Maybe I'm wrong, but one has to try.

Alternatives suggestions greatly appreciated.

.

Wheezebucket
14th May 2007, 02:52 AM
I wish it wasn't necessary.

Not everyone here is familiar with TC and there are many new members, some of which may take his "interesting" posts at face value.

He is all over the forums like a nasty rash and will pop a post without evidence almost anywhere and then run away.

His ID claims are particularly virulent as he repeats claims over and over, such as his claim that evolution is random, despite the fact that repeatedly his claims have been utterly destroyed.


Makes sense, fair enough. Maybe we should put together some kind of sticked TC reference thread, with links to various posts of interest. Not even sticked necessarily, just something with a searchable title we can bring up and add to whenever he says something particularly stupid.

Thanz
16th May 2007, 08:36 AM
First thing that comes to mind would be that abiogenesis is impossible. If ID were true, scientists will never, ever be able to take simple chemical compounds, make complex nonliving compounds out of them, and then make complex living compounds out of those. But I don't know how much of a prediction that is, since the best you will ever be able to come to fulfilling it is to say that scientists haven't done it yet.
So, in order to disprove intelligent design, you want to have a bunch of intelligent people design circumstances that create life.

Kinda the opposite, dontcha think?

tsg
16th May 2007, 08:59 AM
So, in order to disprove intelligent design, you want to have a bunch of intelligent people design circumstances that create life.

Kinda the opposite, dontcha think?

No. The claim was that if ID were true, reproducing abiogenesis in the lab would be impossible. That it is not impossible does not necessarily disprove ID.

p implies q.
not p does not imply not q.

Thanz
16th May 2007, 09:19 AM
No. The claim was that if ID were true, reproducing abiogenesis in the lab would be impossible.
What is the basis for this claim?

Mojo
16th May 2007, 09:23 AM
The claim was that if ID were true, reproducing abiogenesis in the lab would be impossible.

Tisthammerw took the opposite position in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56713), arguing that because scientists can make the chemicals necessary for life, ID has a mechanism supported by evidence.

tsg
16th May 2007, 09:24 AM
What is the basis for this claim?

Beleth would be the best person to answer that since it was his/her claim to begin with. I was commenting on the flaw in your logic.

Thanz
16th May 2007, 09:31 AM
Beleth would be the best person to answer that since it was his/her claim to begin with. I was commenting on the flaw in your logic.

My logic, such as it was, was more of an attempt at humour than anything else. I find the idea that intelligent people designing things in any way would reflect negatively on the idea of intelligent design to be inherently humourous.

But, I would like an explanation from Beleth (or anyone really) why abiogenisis in a lab would be impossible if ID were true.

Mojo
16th May 2007, 09:59 AM
But, I would like an explanation from Beleth (or anyone really) why abiogenisis in a lab would be impossible if ID were true.


I'm not sure about this one, but there's certainly a contradiction at the other end of ID: if ID is true, it would require an intelligent and complex designer to have spontaneously arisen in the absence of life.

tsg
16th May 2007, 10:02 AM
My logic, such as it was, was more of an attempt at humour than anything else.

Then I apologize. Sometimes the humor around here too closely echoes the sentiments of the serious.

But, I would like an explanation from Beleth (or anyone really) why abiogenisis in a lab would be impossible if ID were true.

My understanding, and I may well be wrong and would appreciate any corrections, is that one of the central claims of ID is that complex living organisms could not have been produced naturally from non-living matter. Abiogenesis says, loosely, that the first simple living organisms were the result of complex chemical reactions in non-living matter. Evolution says, again loosely, these organisms gradually became more complex over time through natural selection and random mutation. If ID is true, it should not be possible to create complex organisms from non-living matter at all, even in a lab. That it can be done in a lab does not necessarily disprove ID for the reason you mention: there is an intelligence at work. However, producing a complex living organism from non-living matter in a lab, if the starting conditions are set and the experiment left alone to progress on its own, would go a long way towards showing that abiogenesis could, in fact, happen naturally. It doesn't preclude an intelligence starting that reaction, but it does counter the argument that abiogenesis and evolution can't produce complex organisms without an intelligence guiding the process.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
16th May 2007, 10:04 AM
I'm not sure about this one, but there's certainly a contradiction at the other end of ID: if ID is true, it would require an intelligent and complex designer to have spontaneously arisen in the absence of life.
It's okay for an intelligent designer to poof into existence. It's just not okay for intelligent life to evolve.

~~ Paul