Richard Leakey says debate over evolution will end soon

[pancreasman]

I would love to confront some empirical evidence FOR intelligent design (not just uninformed complaints about genuine theories badly misunderstood or misrepresented).

I mean, real evidence of the Designer, of His methods, and of His purposes. Not assertions, not scriptural quotes, but empirical evidence. Please please produce some, Anyone!

It's obvious. It's all those famous 'hallmarks of design'. Now, since our postulated designer designed every singly item in the universe, you should see these 'hallmarks of design' equally in snowflakes, living cells, dust clouds, mud puddles, piles of gravel, empty space, electricity, rain, strawberry jam etc.

[phank]

It's obvious. It's all those famous 'hallmarks of design'. Now, since our postulated designer designed every singly item in the universe, you should see these 'hallmarks of design' equally in snowflakes, living cells, dust clouds, mud puddles, piles of gravel, empty space, electricity, rain, strawberry jam etc.

This actually starts getting to be a fun game over at Uncommon Descent and other places. It seems the hallmark of design is if an object is both complex and specified (except some simple objects are too simple not to be designed, but anyway...)

And at that point, the question revolves around the specification. If you don't know whether an object meets the spec, or even comes remotely close to the spec, how can you possibly derive the spec from examining the object, UNLESS you already know what that spec must be. Which we do, in the case of human designs.

So you read lots of stuff about how Mt. Rushmore is obviously designed, whereas neighboring rocky outcroppings are obviously natural. But how about the alien who finds the spitting image of his Uncle Ned in the neighboring rocks? The basic problem is, the IDiots use the terms "function" and "specification" interchangeably. I pointed out that one of the tests for childhood creativity is to see how many uses they can find for a brick. Some kids find half a dozen or more. These are all perfectly valid functions, so which one is the specification? Nobody has ever answered!

In the trial in Dover, Behe on the witness stand claimed the Designer could be seen by examining designed objects, because design is basically a PROPERTY of the object, like mass or color. How could this property be measured or reliably detected? Behe was obliged to admit that it was only obvious to members of one religious sect, and invisible to everyone else. But it wasn't religion, oh no, it was SCIENCE! The state of the art simply hasn't advanced far enough to do those things. But in that case, how does BEHE know it was designed? What test methodology is he using? He must be using something, or he wouldn't know. Yet he is absolutely certain. And it's not religion. And around we go.

[magellan004]

I would love to confront some empirical evidence FOR intelligent design (not just uninformed complaints about genuine theories badly misunderstood or misrepresented).

I mean, real evidence of the Designer, of His methods, and of His purposes. Not assertions, not scriptural quotes, but empirical evidence. Please please produce some, Anyone!

Given that you don't know what empirical evidence is, I'd say your chances of 'confronting it' are zero to none.

Magellan

[wattsr1]

Given that you don't know what empirical evidence is, I'd say your chances of 'confronting it' are zero to none.

Magellan

To reinforce my last post Mags.

I never saw WWII (World War II).

I've read lots of books about it. I've seen lots of movies about it. I've read lots of papers from people claiming to have visited battle fields and found crashed aircraft, sunken ships, bullet cases, skeletons etc.

I've even seen pictures of what they have claimed to have found.

But these are only ever claims. The movies, the books, the TV programs, the learned papers - all claims made by folk saying they did this, saw that, can show me this.

Claims, opinions, judgements.

For all I know WWII never happened and all the movies and papers are a bit of ID, designed to make me think it happened. But it didn't really. Who would trust claims when these movies, books and papers can all be explained as fiction, designed by an ID to make the war appear to have happened?

[magellan004]

Well I did warn you that you wouldn't like it.

Look Mags, you are hardly one to complain. AFAICT, I did nothing that you don't do.

Like I say, I'm happy to discuss ID with you. However, if everytime you are called on to confront the meaning of certain empirical evicences we provide, your only retort is to argue that it's merely a claim that a person makes about something they supposedly did, then I'm quite happy to play the same game back at you.

I'm happy to confront the empirical evidences you provide for intelligent design. But then, you are going to have to confront mine for intelligent design.

And if you want me to confront your empirical evidence and the tests you do to show where it points, then you are going to have to confront my empirical evidence and the tests I do to show where it points.

I think you want to be able to pull your ID bunny from the hat and when confronted with my empirical evidence and the tests I do to show where it points, dismiss it all as mere claim, because look, you have supposedly pulled a bunny from the hat.

You seem to be really desperate to discuss something or another with me. I will - on the condition that we both occassionally check that what we think the other person is saying, is what they are saying.


This came up years ago. You couldn't stand the notion of each of us making sure we were talking about the same issue so please don't fool yourself this time. It requires honesty and good intentions.

Now if you want to continue - tell me what your cock-eye notion of ID is and I'll tell you if your concept of ID is the same as my concept of ID. IF our versions disagree then you'll know your chasing a strawman.

Magellan

[Jorge]

Back to you Jorge.

Three points:-

1) The Bible does speak harshly against those who bear false witness, doesn't it, and

2) By misrepresenting an idea a person holds to, you are bearing false witness against them, because they do not hold to that particular idea in the manner you claim they do, and

3) Can you justify your claim that we are our own gods?

*****************************************************************************************

1) Yes, it does.

2) That would be true if misrepresentation were indeed taking place - it isn't.

3) Yes, I certainly can. But why would I waste more time on you? I already know
full well of your spiritual attitude towards these things. Anything I provided would
be completely wasted on you. Let me use that time elsewhere.

Jorge

[wattsr1]

You seem to be really desperate to discuss something or another with me. I will - on the condition that we both occassionally check that what we think the other person is saying, is what they are saying.


This came up years ago. You couldn't stand the notion of each of us making sure we were talking about the same issue so please don't fool yourself this time. It requires honesty and good intentions.

Now if you want to continue - tell me what your cock-eye notion of ID is and I'll tell you if your concept of ID is the same as my concept of ID. IF our versions disagree then you'll know your chasing a strawman.

Magellan

And similarly will you be happy to tell me what your cock-eye notion of ToE is, and I'll tell you if your concept of ToE is the same as my concept of ToE. If our versions disagree when you'll know you are chasing a strawman?

Are you happy with that?

I'll go first and give you my cock-eye version of ID if you are happy to do your version of ToE.

[Jorge]

I would love to confront some empirical evidence FOR intelligent design (not just uninformed complaints about genuine theories badly misunderstood or misrepresented).

Try reading our book, Without Excuse. In it we discuss what I consider to
be the strongest possible empirical evidence (information!) for ID and a Creator.

I mean, real evidence of the Designer, of His methods, and of His purposes. Not assertions,
not scriptural quotes, but empirical evidence. Please please produce some, Anyone!

Two words : Without Excuse.

Jorge

[wattsr1]

*****************************************************************************************

1) Yes, it does.

2) That would be true if misrepresentation were indeed taking place - it isn't.

Thank you Jorge. You and I agree on this, except for the "it isn't" part. But the rest we agree on. You might need to have a quiet word with Mags about this.

3) Yes, I certainly can. But why would I waste more time on you? I already know
full well of your spiritual attitude towards these things. Anything I provided would
be completely wasted on you. Let me use that time elsewhere.

So you don't want to educate the lurkers with some great spiritual insights because you are afraid I might ridicule your points? Or are you afraid that I might make your points look to be bad ones?

Jorge

We agree on this too.

[rogue06]

To reinforce my last post Mags.

I never saw WWII (World War II).

I've read lots of books about it. I've seen lots of movies about it. I've read lots of papers from people claiming to have visited battle fields and found crashed aircraft, sunken ships, bullet cases, skeletons etc.

I've even seen pictures of what they have claimed to have found.

But these are only ever claims. The movies, the books, the TV programs, the learned papers - all claims made by folk saying they did this, saw that, can show me this.

Claims, opinions, judgements.

For all I know WWII never happened and all the movies and papers are a bit of ID, designed to make me think it happened. But it didn't really. Who would trust claims when these movies, books and papers can all be explained as fiction, designed by an ID to make the war appear to have happened?

An old Talk.Origins post-of-the-month runner-up for Feb. 2004 does something similar but with the War of 1812. Go half-way down the page (past the winner for the month) to read Was There a War of 1812?

[magellan004]

And similarly will you be happy to tell me what your cock-eye notion of ToE is, and I'll tell you if your concept of ToE is the same as my concept of ToE. If our versions disagree when you'll know you are chasing a strawman?

Are you happy with that?

I'll go first and give you my cock-eye version of ID if you are happy to do your version of ToE.

You really must be drinking double-spiked egg-nogs. Why on Earth do you think I want to discuss your notion of ID?
Now leave me alone.

Magellan

[wattsr1]

You really must be drinking double-spiked egg-nogs. Why on Earth do you think I want to discuss your notion of ID?

Because you wrote this:-

Now if you want to continue - tell me what your cock-eye notion of ID is and I'll tell ...

Now leave me alone.

Why?

[wattsr1]

An old Talk.Origins post-of-the-month runner-up for Feb. 2004 does something similar but with the War of 1812. Go half-way down the page (past the winner for the month) to read Was There a War of 1812?

That's a beauty.

So many YEC claims, assertions, arguments leave themselves wide open to that kind of parody.

[magellan004]

This actually starts getting to be a fun game over at Uncommon Descent and other places. It seems the hallmark of design is if an object is both complex and specified (except some simple objects are too simple not to be designed, but anyway...)

And at that point, the question revolves around the specification. If you don't know whether an object meets the spec, or even comes remotely close to the spec, how can you possibly derive the spec from examining the object, UNLESS you already know what that spec must be. Which we do, in the case of human designs.

So you read lots of stuff about how Mt. Rushmore is obviously designed, whereas neighboring rocky outcroppings are obviously natural. But how about the alien who finds the spitting image of his Uncle Ned in the neighboring rocks? The basic problem is, the IDiots use the terms "function" and "specification" interchangeably. I pointed out that one of the tests for childhood creativity is to see how many uses they can find for a brick. Some kids find half a dozen or more. These are all perfectly valid functions, so which one is the specification? Nobody has ever answered!

In the trial in Dover, Behe on the witness stand claimed the Designer could be seen by examining designed objects, because design is basically a PROPERTY of the object, like mass or color. How could this property be measured or reliably detected? Behe was obliged to admit that it was only obvious to members of one religious sect, and invisible to everyone else. But it wasn't religion, oh no, it was SCIENCE! The state of the art simply hasn't advanced far enough to do those things. But in that case, how does BEHE know it was designed? What test methodology is he using? He must be using something, or he wouldn't know. Yet he is absolutely certain. And it's not religion. And around we go.

To Phank:
What Pancreatitis meant to say in Post 76 was :
It's obvious. It's all those famous 'hallmarks of species'. Now, since our postulated common ancestor was the source of every singly organism on Earth, you should see these 'hallmarks of species' equally in animals, bugs, viruses, asexual plants, living cells, fungi, hybrids, etc

Then what you, being a rational and sciencey person, say in reply was:

This actually starts getting to be a fun game wherever reasonable people talk. It seems the hallmark of species is if an organism is unable to interbreed with other animals other than animals in it's own group (whatever group means): (except some organisms don't interbreed anyway, but anyway...)

And at that point, the question revolves around the specification. If you don't know whether an organism meets the spec, or even comes remotely close to the spec, how can you possibly derive the spec from examining the organism , UNLESS you already know what that spec must be. Which we do, in the case of animals that have already been labelled as belonging to a certain kind.

So you read lots of stuff about how ligers can't produce viable offspring, whereas neighboring organisms are obviously a different species. But how about the alien who finds the spitting image of his Uncle Ned in the neighboring rocks? The basic problem is, the evo-idiots use the terms "interbreed " and "specification" interchangeably. I pointed out that one of the tests for childhood creativity is to see how many types of dinosaurs a kid can make using a set of dino heads, trunks and legs. Some kids find half a dozen or more. These are all perfectly valid species , so which one is the specification? Nobody has ever answered!

In the trial in Dover, the evo-idiots conveniently forgot that for each of the requirements Behe was meant to comply with, the evolutionists would fail on every single one themselves. The evo-idiots didn't have to take the witness stand to justify their claims that Species could be determined by examining an organisisms ability to interbreed. How could this interbreeding property be measured or reliably detected? The Evo-idiots would have to admit it was only obvious to some evolutionists , and invisible to everyone else. But evolution isn't religion, oh no, it's science! The state of the art simply hasn't advanced far enough to do those things. But in that case, how does an evolutionist know it was a new species? What test methodology is he using? He must be using something, or he wouldn't know. Yet he is absolutely certain. And it's not religion. And around we go.

I note that you have added "specification' to your burgeoning panoply of scientific requisites (viz a viz operational, empirical, objective, and so on) . It must be wonderful to be at the controls of SS Enterprise Science - gayly making your way forward by adding rules and requirements, dismissing nasty Klingon-like evidence from anyone who holds a different view to you. I remember the first Star-Trek movie. In that film the Voyager probe was returning to Earth with an awesome and incomprehensible amount of stuff it had collected on its travels throughout the universe. So much so that its cargo of information was nothing short of a menace to everyone.

Magellan

[lilpixieofterror]

Jorge is making sense. If you are going to abandon all sanity and any respect for reality, you might as well go whole hog. There is a certain impurity about picking and choosing which parts of stone-age goat herder fables are actual natural history, which are metaphors, which are modified re-positioned myths from other cultures, and which are just entertaining fiction.

I think Jorge has the right of it here. If you can believe in gods, you can believe in anything! Why stint yourself?

Anybody else find it really funny and sad, all at once, how extreme fundy atheist sound so much like extreme fundy Christians?