Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Philosophy and God » Most frequent responses given by proponents of naturalism in a debate, and how they can improve their debate skills.

Most frequent responses given by proponents of naturalism in a debate, and how they can improve their debate skills.

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Admin


Admin
Most frequent responses given by proponents of naturalism in a debate, and how they can improve their debate skills

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2288-most-frequent-responses-given-by-proponents-of-naturalism-in-a-debate-and-how-they-can-improve-their-debate-skills

This is the age of the internet. Links are appropriate, that's what the internet is.  Ever heard the saying, "don't judge a book by it's cover"? 

Its rather common that oponents of my views think they can make a refutation by complaining that the source from where i take the information is not a peer reviewed scientific paper.  Reasonanscience is my personal virtual library. Almost all my arguments and premises are based on mainstream science. The premises and evidence is solid science. What you might disagree with, are the inferences i draw upon the evidence we observe in the natural world. My inference is that we do know how to recognize the action of intelligence, and can therefor make solid scientific predictions based on intelligent design, and test if they apply to natural phenomenas.

 The result is that we have encountered  coded Information which is complex and instructional/specified found in epigenetic systems  and genes, and irreducible , interdependent molecular machines and biosynthetic and metabolic pathways in biological systems. In the same manner as a the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 is practically zero, it applies in the same manner  for example to proteins. A short protein molecule of 150 amino acids, the probability of building a 150 amino acids chain in which all linkages are peptide linkages would be roughly 1 chance in 10^45.

 Paul Davies once said; How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software … ? Nobody knows …… there is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing. You need however hundreds, if not thousands of proteins, which are ALL essential. But they have no function, unless correctly interconnected through the metabolic network. Since evolution starts operating only after dna replication is in place, the only alternative mechanism to produce the original genset, proteome, and metabolic network for the first cells is design.

What to do:
1. Study if the premise is true. Take the time to actually understand what it is about. 
2. Analyse if a compelling case through naturalism exists ( can the origin of the phenomena in question be explained convincingly , proposing natural mechanisms ?   
3. Analyse if the action of a intelligent, causal agency is not a better explanation 
4. If you think , naturalism has better explanatory power, refute claims of ID proponents, and listen to their defense, or 
5. Admit ID has the better explanatory power, and check if that is the case in regard of other issues as well. 
6. If various issues are better explained through ID, change your world view, or on the contrary, if naturalism hase a overall more compelling case, keep your world view.  


If you want to provide better explanations of origins than a proponent of intelligent design like me, here a suggestion : 


Do not : try to attack my knowledge
Do not : try to attack   my education, ( asking to go back to school etc. )  or ask for my credentials 
Do not : try to attack  my source ( It is my personal virtual library. Almost all my arguments and premises are based on mainstream scientific papers. What you might disagree with, are the inferences i draw upon the evidence we observe in the natural world. In that case, all you have to do is to provide better explanation of origins of the phenomena described) 
Do not argue  that i copied the argument from somewhere ( its perfectly valid to present external sources in a scientific debate. In my case, i take frequently reference to my personal virtual library, where most arguments are based on the evidence provided by mainstream scientific , often peer reviewed papers )
Do not  argue that the argument is from ignorance ( its not )
Do not  ask for proofs that God exists. There are no proofs, neither that God exists, neither that the natural world is all there is. Ask the right philosophical question: How can we best explain the origin and existence of the physical world ?  
Do not  argue its pseudo science ( my arguments are usually very detailled. Pseudo-science is the oposit ) 
Do not : try to  attack the bible ( intelligent design has nothing to do with the bible ) 
Do not make any explitic adhom, calling me names, like troll, stupid, idiot etc. , or acusing me of not thinking, or not using my brain. Please remain polite and rational , as i am being with you  ( beside  it adds nothing to your case, nor does it make naturalism become more compelling ) 
- Nor acuse me of being biased ( we are all to a certain degree. You too ) 
Do not  call my inference magic ( A potent and intelligent cause makes still more sense than everything coming from nothing ) 
Do not   suggest to peer review my point ( the hostility of the scientific establishment towards intelligent design is well known ) 
Do not  acuse me or my source of lying ( unless you have proof  of it, then point out exactly why its a lie )

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2288-most-frequent-responses-given-by-proponents-of-naturalism-in-a-debate-and-how-they-can-improve-their-debate-skills

The Internet  is dominated by the crude, the uninformed, the immature, the smug, the untalented, the  repetitious, the pathetic, the hostile, the deluded, the self-righteous, and the shrill.    Usually, the tool of the loser of a debate will resort to insult, [Arostotle]  Basic rule of thumb  : When someone with oposit views  starts calling you names, it means he has nothing left to debate against your argument. It also means: The  proponent of intelligent design / creationism  just won the debate.  Namecalling serves no useful purpose and is, therefore, illogical My advice: Do not make any explitic adhom, calling me names, like troll, stupid, idiot etc. , or acusing me of not thinking, or not using my brain. Do also not  try to attack   my education, ( asking to go back to school, taking a science class etc. )  or ask for my credentials.  It adds nothing to your case, nor does it make naturalism become more compelling. 

What to do:
1.Study if the premise is true. Take your time to actually understand what is presented to you. 
2. Analyse if a compelling case through naturalism exists 
3. Analyse if intelligent design is not a better explanation 
4. If you think , naturalism has better explanatory power, refute claims of ID proponents, and listen to their defense, or 
5. Admit ID has the better explanatory power, and check if that is the case in regard of other issues as well. 
6. If various issues are better explained through ID, change your world view. 
 

 
Dembsky : We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems: we have positive experience-based knowledge of a cause that is sufficient to generate new instructing complex information, namely, intelligence.  the design inference  does not constitute an argument from ignorance. Instead, it constitutes an "inference to the best explanation" based upon our best available knowledge.  It asserts the superior explanatory power of a proposed cause based upon its proven—its known—causal adequacy and  based upon a lack of demonstrated efficacy among the competing proposed causes.  The problem is that nature has too many options and without design couldn’t sort them all out. Natural mechanisms are too unspecific to determine any particular outcome. Mutation and natural selection or luck/chance/probablity could theoretically form a new complex morphological feature like a  leg or a limb with the right size and form , and arrange to find out the right body location to grow them , but it could  also produce all kinds of other new body forms, and grow and attach them anywhere on the body, most of which have no biological advantage or are most probably deleterious to the organism. Natural mechanisms have no constraints, they could produce any kind of novelty. Its however that kind of freedom that makes it extremely unlikely that mere natural developments provide new specific evolutionary arrangements that are advantageous to the organism.  Nature would have to arrange almost a infinite number of trials and errors until getting a new positive  arrangement. Since that would become a highly  unlikely event, design is a better explanation. 

Even the simplest of these substances [proteins] represent extremely complex compounds, containing many thousands of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen arranged in absolutely definite patterns, which are specific for each separate substance.  To the student of protein structure the spontaneous formation of such an atomic arrangement in the protein molecule would seem as im- probable as would the accidental origin of the text of irgil’s “Aeneid” from scattered letter type.1
– A. I. Oparin

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2288-most-frequent-responses-given-by-proponents-of-naturalism-in-a-debate-and-how-they-can-improve-their-debate-skills
Do not argue  that i copied the argument from a " nonscience " site, like heavenforum , or somewhere else.  Heavenforum is for instance not a name i gave to it, but i chose it as platform because its free ( http://www.heavenforum.org/ ), and furthermore, its perfectly valid to present external sources in a scientific debate. In my case, i take frequently reference to my personal virtual library, where most if not all my arguments and inferences are based on the evidence provided by mainstream scientific , often peer reviewed papers. So if you disagree with my inferences, provide more compelling ones, and we talk...... 


Critizism about the opponents knowledge
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2114-personal-attacks#3759

Critizising the oponents knowledge, intelligence or education is not the best way to establish a point. I hear often critiques like : You need basic understanding in science, you don't understand evolution, take a science class, we're trying to educate you, you are spouting ignorance of the subject,  you refuse to learn, Head well and truly in the sand, willful ignorance is your decision, you don't understand what you're copying and pasting, or go over to explicit insults of various forms and degrees. Mock and ridicule  with contempt is not new to me. That are responses put forward frequently by Atheists in the attempt to hide their own ignorance, and avoid providing substance. Rather than address the specific issues in question, and provide compelling scenarios that would underline their own views, they resort to that implicit personal attacks and try to discredit the oponent. Not only does it hide their ignorance on the subject, but they expose also their ignorance of their oponents knowledge and education, which cannot be known after a few sentences and posts made on  a specific topic.   Fact is, even IF their oponent were ignorant on the issue, that would not make their  views become more credible or correct. Thats a logical fallacy. The best way for them to deal with the arguments brought forward by proponents of ID/creationism, is 1. educate themself about the issue in question, and 2. if they disagree with the inference drawn , provide a better explanation based on their views.

The truth about origins , and about who proposes it

Some of the most common questions of atheists is about the education of the one that makes a case, or if his evidence was peer reviewed.

The best explanation of the mechanism of origins remains the best explanation, no matter if the proponent is educated in astrophysics, astronomy, chemistry, biochemistry, biology, if he has a PHD, a doctorate, a formal education of any degree, or no formal degree at all. Anyone, independet of its formal education, can educate himself about science related to origins. Ignorance is a free choice in the age of information. It is easy and freely availabe on the internet, or books. All someone has to do, is to spend time, and understand the evidence, and draw logical compelling inferences based on the observation.

Its also irrelevant, if the source of the information is a peer rewieved scientific article or not. All that is required, is that the premise and the observed evidence in the natural world is correctly described and characterized. Some of the most influential scientic papers were rejected during the peer review process.

Good Science without Peer-Review
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1919-good-science-without-peer-review



Last edited by Admin on Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:15 am; edited 48 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
http://www.nature.com/news/paper-that-says-human-hand-was-designed-by-creator-sparks-concern-1.19499



The PLOS ONE staff may not have acknowledged yet, but ID theory is gaining ground in the last 3 decades:

Intelligent design theories gaining steam in scientific circles 

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2282-intelligent-design-theories-gaining-steam-in-scientific-circles

The scientific endaveour has not brought us the ample and wide confirmation of Darwins theory of evolution, nor to the overwhelming conclusion that natural forces alone explain our existence. Rather than that, the gap is widening more the more time pasts, and rather than explaining natural phenomenas through naturalism, the end of the road is a big question mark, and unanswered questions. 

Open questions in biology, biochemistry, and evolution

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2299-open-questions-in-biology-biochemistry-and-evolution

A reflection of the foundation of what science is, and what propositions should be permitted, and which not, may be well applied. 

http://www.ise.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/9512/naturalism_science_supernatural.pdf

There is overwhelming agreement amongst naturalists that a naturalistic ontology should not allow for the possibility of supernatural entities. I argue, against this prevailing consensus, that naturalists have no proper basis to oppose the existence of supernatural entities. Naturalism is characterized, following Leiter and Rea, as a position which involves a primary commitment to scientific methodology and it is argued that any naturalistic ontological commitments must be compatible with this primary commitment. It is further argued that properly applied scientific method has warranted the acceptance of the existence of supernatural entities in the past and that it is plausible to think that it will do so again in the future. So naturalists should allow for the possibility of supernatural entities.

I might add that i personally would not go that far. I would imho rather point out that there is no reason to permit only natural explanations into scientific publications :

Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, January 9, 1997

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

There are two possible causal agents for natural phenomena, that is , a intelligent agency, and a " natural " agency. There is no justification to apply a pressupositional stance that only natural mechanisms should be permitted, and design inferences excluded a priori. 

I encourage the PLOS ONE stuff to think about the situation , and pioneer a healthy debate about the foundation of modern science.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Here a collection of the most heard answers coming from the naturalism/atheist/skeptic camp when a case for intelligent design/creationism is made:



I suspect that's largely because you lack an understanding of the subjects you attempt to debate.

You don't understand the theory of evolution or the evidence that supports it  attacks my knowledge

You are making a foll of yourself and you even don't know it

Yeah, religious forums are not convincing evidence. Try harder. attacks the source

it tells us that your argument is "I don't know how life works therefore Jesus" says its a argument from ignorance

Article shows ignorance of evolution science & biochem pathways in particular. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS PSEUDOSCIENCE.  says ID is pseudoscience

But the site is called HeavenForum! Totally not biased!  There isn't software to a cell. It wasn't programmed  attacks the source

We don't need you bronze age book of myth to explain reality.   attacks the bible

BULLSHIT asshole, which God, because you are not the only one moron!  explicit adhom

Yeah, I don't get the point of sending me the link to an obviously biased site   attacks the source

if you disagree, you are ignorant superstitious wildling.  personal attack

Eh When you produce unbiased, purely scientific, peer reviewed evidence rather that a blog I'd be more open  attacks the source

You suffer from classic confirmation bias. Your argument is far from logical/reasonable  argues that i am biased

You are not mentally prepared to accept the possibility you could be wrong.Polar opposite to scientist mind.    personal attack

because you're an IDiot  explicit adhom

Until you can provide a link to a peer-reviewed publication of this hypothesis, not interested. attacks the source

im sorry but your source is not a reliable or REAL one. please provide the evidence i ask for or ill assume u have 0  attacks the source

@Otangelo  You’re apparently uneducated. #block morons personal attack

I've seen enough of your nonsense, you lying, delusional fuck. Your god is an imaginary construct, just like an invisible pink unicorn, you delusional fuck. personal attack

please shut the fuck up about magic.  It's too early for childish bullshit  Calls my inference magic. 

If you can disprove evolution, then you should write your proof, submit it for peer review from a credible organization, publish your paper in a credible science journal and collect your Nobel prize.  suggests to peer review it. 

Yeah right. How much of your so called 'science' has been published in peer reviewed scientific journals Angelo?
I think we all know the answer to that.
Think you have a valid argument that challenges real science? Get it published in a real scientific journal.   suggests to peer review it. 


May as well cite AIG or ICR as William Psychopath Craig and his band of lunatics. Attacks the source

Still citing that band of liars? Acuses my source or me to be lying







The moral ? No one actually attacked the presented science, or the validity of the inference. So, dear proponent of atheism :



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jul 27, 2016 6:55 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum