William Dembski: How To Be An Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist (or not) Part 1

[burnsidebluntslide]

@logicCplusplus, I love it how you think you are open minded because you don't agree with scientific consensus, I guess you don't believe in the theory of gravity either as you are just so well informed and open minded

[logicCplusplus]

@burnsidebluntslide The effects gravity (F=ma) is well tested and is observable and repeatable on a daily basis. Its quite successful in the engineering realm from software simulations to aerodynamics to much more even though the cause of the existence of gravity (mass to particles) is yet fuzzy. BTW, do you have any support for your position that you can compare gravity and evolution with your head up high?

[gregrutz]

IDiot !

[logicCplusplus]

@gregrutz

Dumbass, how many times do I have to expose your nonsense?

[Fusengammu]

Who is this moron?

[burnsidebluntslide]

i find it extremely humerous that he claims that his side have won the debate even though there is not one published article supporting the concept of intelligent design in any reputable journal, as opposed to the thousands and thousands of articles supporting evolution that are published every year

[logicCplusplus]

@burnsidebluntslide

That is because you are ignorant and ill-informed. Its that simple.Thousands and thousands of articles are published in support of Global Warming as well, should we suck Al Gores dick as well (A Nobel Prize winner who couldn't get through high school)? You would, but quite frankly I am a bit more open minded.

[dlbattle100]

The flagellum thing has been thoroughly debunked. Examples have been found of structures that use only subsets of the parts, such as poison injectors that some bacteria have, and others. How do I know he's lying? Because he keeps saying the same thing regardless of evidence. He doesn't care about the truth he cares about his agenda. I'm not fundamentally against the idea of God, I'm just against liars.

[Joe881]

@dlbattle100 Maybe you should watch part 2 before you responded. This would have prevented you from having egg on your face.

[gregrutz]

@Joe881 In part II he explains why the mouse trap and everything else is not irreducibly complex.

[94jmcorrea]

creationist fool

[logicCplusplus]

@94jmcorrea

Yet, he would laugh at your credentials and so would I.

[jirris]

@koabarra Oh, I know, I know. I'm fairly schooled in debate (not the internet kind, but the for real-real kind). I said that mostly as a joke towards the apologetic theologians who go to take on a subject they generally aren't well schooled in and then shout "I WIN (because I'm going to argue from ignorance all day)". I've read some philosophy texts, but I certainly wouldn't say I'm well educated in it. It's *just* enough to get me in trouble if my ego out-stripped my ability.

[jirris]

I find it funny that it's always theologists making scientific claims.

I think what I'm going to do from now on, as someone with an education in biology, is to go rile up a bunch of philosophy students.

[YHWHisSovereign]

The intellectual debate has been won. Evolutionists are able only to keep their position on top by intimidation and lies. If someone questions evolution, they are rejected for promotions and risk being fired. They try their best to ignore the big, loud, and smelly elephant in the room. If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny.

[misterzonker2584]

Dembski actually gets a lot of the evolutionary process right but rejects it because it's guided by chance and invokes no designer. He is seriously misunderstanding the role of chance in natural selection, but he is not incorrect that it is an atheistic process because it's so sloppy and brutal. I ask myself, if God exists, why would he choose this method for creative measures? It appears Dembski has this question weighing on his mind, too, but comes to a different conclusion than I do.

[IloveYOUviruses]

Good work removing atheism from science :) the new generation would demonstrate design... but God likes faith... maybe He will stop this realm who knows

[VeryImagesozo]

Bart Erhman is a knowledgable textual scholar and I respect his education and research, but he has not said anything factually that I did not already know, he just puts an ideology bias his interpretation of it. Dean John Burgeon, who wrote 100 years ago, and confirms the textual accurracy of the Bible, blows the doors off Erhman when it comes to factual research. So, you see, it depends upon the source and your ideology. We are not going convince each other of our positions.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

People like Dembski baffle me. Can they still look in the mirror without shame after piling lie upon lie in public? They must have quite she talent for rationalizing.

[EastofForever]

@O8ZERVA what an idiotic statement.

[Talamasca124]

There is no such thing as ‘Darwinism’. Any more than there is Newtonism, or Eisteinism.

Darwin wrote ‘Origin of Species’ because he wasn’t talking about the origin of life. I can talk about pancakes and not talk about breakfast.

This guy has barely a high school textbook knowledge of biology.

If Christians came from Jews, why do we still have Jews?

[KaraZiasapiens]

Did he really use the flagellum example?? Wow. Seriously, all you have to do is look it up on youtube- cdk007 does a beautiful job of demonstrating how the flagellum ISN'T irreducibly complex. Heck, cdk007 even shows Jake Szostak's work to show how abiogenesis happened. Dembski- 'We do have the argument.' No, no you don't. FAIL.

[KaraZiasapiens]

It's too bad this guy didn't spend some of his time at Princeton in a biology or genetics class..

[KaraZiasapiens]

If I answer 'God did it' on my science exams, will I get an A?

[StopSpamming1]

This video is only a year old. Did people then not have the information we have in 2010? I was not aware that a year ago the USA still based their medical research on superstitions and not on facts.

But seriously: is there any useful application based on ID?

[KaraZiasapiens]

@StopSpamming1 Nope, no useful applications...unless you count exorcisms and voodoo. And the placebo affect...

[StopSpamming1]

@KaraZiasapiens

lol

[misterzonker2584]

@StopSpamming1 Where are you from? I take it not the US? The answer to your question, however, is no, ID has no use.  This movement is stronger than ever here, and it is terrifying in its implication. It's no wonder we're getting our asses handed to us overseas in the math and science disciplines. It's talks like this that make me ashamed to be an American. Most of our university professors are smarter than this guy, but yes, superstition still reigns in the US, amazingly and depressingly.

[logicCplusplus]

@misterzonker2584

ID technically is all logic and math.And no,I disagree that most university professors are smarter, as far as Math is concerned,Dembski is considered a genius, have you read any of his papers?Dembski has also published papers (supporting ID) with some of the top engineers on the planet (Robert J. Marks). But it doesn't stop there, Durston, Abel, Szostak etc..have published in peer-reviewed journals,again mostly all logic and math.So no,I don't see your point.

[gregrutz]

@logicCplusplus Yes, and this kind of bullshit alway shows up when a math 'genius' trys to do Biology.

''mostly all logic and math'' Correct again, they have absolutly no evidence to support their crap.

How many times do I have to expose your nonsense?

[logicCplusplus]

@gregrutz

Do you deny biology is information based, that it can be quantified, that we can therefore make mathematical deductions with good certainty based on certain processes. Darwinists have failed at determining the probabilistic hurdles of their theory, so ID folks such as Dembski do it for them.

[gregrutz]

@logicCplusplus Biology is based on the forces of nature just like everything else. Things got more complex through evolution, it's a little late to say the odds are low.

[logicCplusplus]

@gregrutz

A computer is also based on the forces of nature. The is nothing "unnatural" about a computer, from the physical layer to the software layer.That doesn't mean it was created by a random process. It took top-down intelligence to evolve, where preset goals were specified in advance.The Darwinian algorithm is simply weak for a multitude of reasons which I believe you already know by now, and unless it has preset goals,there is literally no way positive evolution can take place.

[gregrutz]

@logicCplusplus ''That doesn't mean it was created by a random process'' NO ONE SAYS IT WAS

. It took top-down intelligence to evolve,''

COMPUTERS WERE BUILT, BREEDING POPULATIONS EVOLVE where preset goals were specified in advance.

EVOLUTION HAS ONLY ONE GOAL, TO SURVIVE.

[logicCplusplus]

@gregrutz

Computers evolve in response to market conditions. The market determines if the next Ipod model will be sold the following year (supply and demand).

To survive isn't a process, its simply a result of a process. NS only works when there is already existing function. Function has to exist before it can become selected. So a question for you: which came first, function or adaptability?

[gregrutz]

@logicCplusplus Making every kind of dog from a wolf proves all the information is already there.

[haha345]

Let me use probability. I assume you know probability basics. Let say we pick a real number between 0 and 1. There are infinitely many real numbers between 0 and 1. So, P(picking a real number between 0 and 1) = 1/infinity = 0.

Ok, suppose life is created by a designer. Who is the designer? ok, you say there must be one. But there are infinitely many possible creators according to your argument. So, P(an entity being the designer) = 1/infinity = 0

So, P(God is the designer) = 0. That's it.

[haha345]

Oh no no. It is not a whore. It is a bastard who created life!

[haha345]

Oh sorry. I was wrong. I made a new discovery. The designer is not a whore but A SLUTTY WHORE! The evolution fails and we have finally confirmed a new theory, A WHOLE CREATED LIFE INTELLIGENTLY!!! oh yea! that is exciting. we are discovering new scientific theories

[haha345]

Oh yea! You are absolutely right. There is an intelligent designer after all! I know who that designer is. It is A WHORE.

[xxxrokkstarrxxx]

It must be nice to make a living parading your ignorance in your respective field about while other ignorant people applaud and commend you for being so ignorant.

[DeJay17Revolution]

perhaps your to close minded to see that perhaps your wrong

[xxxrokkstarrxxx]

@DeJay17Revolution

Perhaps. But then again, I'm not cheerfully espousing my dogmatic adherence to ancient Middle Eastern mythology, I'm not superstitious, and I think those who do so are much more befitting of the title "close minded".

Being open minded doesn't mean you discard your capacity for critical thinking.

The nature of such beliefs are by their very definition, close minded.

[proginosko]

@xxxrokkstarrxxx The idea that theist are "closed minded" is a propular myth that is easily repeated because it based purely upon subjective opinion.

[xxxrokkstarrxxx]

@proginosko

Open-mindedness refers to the ability and willingness to rationally and analytically consider the validity of new ideas, even those running contrary to one's previously held beliefs.

Theistic beliefs being held above such scrutiny, unwilling to consider contrary facts and ideas, are by their very definition "closed".

[VeryImagesozo]

@xxxrokkstarrxxx Your statement concerning open-mindedness is on target...bulls eye. Good Job. So, I guess that means that rather than being stuck in a narrow paradigm of naturalism, you will be open minded enough to examine the possibility of theism. It does not mean that you would accept theism, but to at least do an exhaustive research into its possibility. As you can see, the concept of openmindedness cuts both ways.

[xxxrokkstarrxxx]

@VeryImagesozo

The only conceptual framework in which I choose to understand the universe is one that attempts to weigh all of the available evidence in order to construct a system of beliefs that reflects reality in terms of what is true and what is not in the most accurate manner possible. It readily and EAGERLY accepts new evidence and ideas with the explicit purpose of making informed decisions about what can be said to be "true". I would hardly call that narrow.

[xxxrokkstarrxxx]

@VeryImagesozo

I am in fact, even willing to consider new ways in which to define the very concepts of 'truth' and 'existence'. My allegedly 'narrow paradigm' is in fact open down to it's very core.

I have considered and HAVE exhaustively researched a plethora of theistic belief systems from across the globe, and have found them to inherently reject such openness in favor of rigidly imposed and unrealistic modes of thinking that don't generally reflect what tends to be true in reality.

[VeryImagesozo]

@xxxrokkstarrxxx Even though you have done research, your assertion that theist are "closed minded" is nonetheless, not only stereotyping, but subjective opinion. I would acknowledge a subgroup of theist are uneducated concerning why they believe what they believe and the evidence for or against their belief. However, their are many thiest that have done a ton of research and honestly came to a theistic conclusion. To dismiss them as if they never researched the issue is subjective bias. .

[xxxrokkstarrxxx]

@VeryImagesozo

I said that I have generally found theistic belief systems to inherently reject openness to new conceptual frameworks as new information becomes available.

That does not mean I dismiss individual theists out of hand "as if they've never researched the issue", I could only evaluate that on an individual basis. I'm open to considering new arguments, but you seem interested in assuming things that don't accurately represent my position. So who's really the one expressing bias?

[VeryImagesozo]

@xxxrokkstarrxxx I have no problem with you clarifying your position. My comments were based upon my understanding of your previous comments. With the clarification you just gave, I would not say you are stereotyping.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@VeryImagesozo

Open-mindedness does not imply that you seriously have to consider every fringe idea people can come up with. Theists have absolutely nothing to show for their claims, despite having had thousands of years to do so.

[VeryImagesozo]

@MomoTheBellyDancer Believe whatever it is you want to believe. I'm tired of evidence being ignored in favor of ideology and then after evidence is presented the tired old cry, "You have no evidence".

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@VeryImagesozo

"after evidence is presented "

What evidence have the theists ever presented?

[VeryImagesozo]

@MomoTheBellyDancer I bang head against wall....never mind....just keep telling yourself there is no evidence and I will keep reading the piles of books I have that present the evidence in support of the Bible. Just keep saying to yourself..."There is no evidence....there is no evidence" and cover your ears when evidence is presented. You could join your other friends on this forum and all of you together could tell each other "there is no evidence" in a support group. No ill intent here.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@VeryImagesozo

"the piles of books I have that present the evidence in support of the Bible"

So what? There are also many books that claim to provide evidence in support of Judaism, Islam or Hinduism. On further investigation all such books contain nothing but vapid reasoning, circular arguments and wishful thinking.

Also, evidence does not come from books. It comes from observations in the real world. Where can this god of yours be observed?

[VeryImagesozo]

@MomoTheBellyDancer If your looking for a god that can be placed in a laboratory and be subject to empirical experimentation...sorry...I don't know that god. Let's see, historical evidence, not good enough, Kalam Cosmological argument, not good enough, ontological argument, not good enough, teleological argument, not good enough, archeological discoveries in support of the historical narrative of the Bible, not good enough, and the list goes on. Do you see the problem? Hands over ears.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@VeryImagesozo "historical evidence, not good enough" Historical evidence for the existence of your god? Wow. Let's see it. "Kalam Cosmological argument" These and similar arguments are irrelevant since they are just that: arguments. What I want is evidence, not rethoric. "archeological discoveries in support of the historical narrative" Even Israeli archeologists, with all their vested interest, have to admit that the evidence is flimsy at best. "hands over ears." Projecting much?

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@VeryImagesozo

"I don't know that god."

Of course you don't. Nobody knows your god, since he's but a figment of your imagination.

[VeryImagesozo]

@MomoTheBellyDancer I did not say that a god that can be subject to empirical scientific experiments was the same God I believe in. Evidence keeps mounting, such as, even Pharoah's chariots were recently located under the red sea. I am not saying anyone has to come to the same conclusion about the evidence but to completely ignore its existence shows prejudice. Interpretation of evidence will most likely be determined by ideology. To admit that is to be honost. I see it from a theist view.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@VeryImagesozo

"I did not say that a god that can be subject to empirical scientific experiments was the same God I believe in. "

Wow, isn't that convenient.

"Evidence keeps mounting"

Wait a sec. First you say you can't study this god, and now you say there's evidence? Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

"Interpretation of evidence will most likely be determined by ideology."

Only in the theistic mindset.

[VeryImagesozo]

@MomoTheBellyDancer In addition to ideological prejudice, which we all have to a certain extent, prejudice against different types of evidence can also cause someone to ignore evidence. The empirical scientific method is legitimate, but also limited, and it is not the only method of determining truth and reality. Historical evidence is not scientific and yet it is legitimate. Philosophy is also legitimate, as long as the arguments are logical, and the arguments I mentioned are strong.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@VeryImagesozo

"The empirical scientific method is legitimate, but also limited"

Yes, it's limited to what we can observe. We don't observe any gods or any of their supposed effects.

"Philosophy is also legitimate, as long as the arguments are logical"

Philosophical arguments are only valid in philosophical debates, not in scientific research.

[VeryImagesozo]

@MomoTheBellyDancer Also, it is your assumption that the God I know is a figment of my imagination. When it comes to these arguments, I read and consider them, including Dawkins, Bart Erhman, Dennet and so forth. I respect them when it comes to their area of expertise, however, eventhough Dawkins, for example, is a well educated and knowlegable biologist, his skills in Philosophy and theology are horrible, and yet he is constantly making assurtions outside of the field of expertise.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@VeryImagesozo

"it is your assumption that the God I know is a figment of my imagination"

Since no god has ever been observed that's a fair conclusion.

"his skills in Philosophy and theology are horrible"

He has something much better to show for it: evidence. Evidence trumps all.

[VeryImagesozo]

@MomoTheBellyDancer Well, having said all that...I have no hard feelings against you and I hope best for you. I can only point you to good resources, and you the same for me. I will consider them and read them, as i have others before.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@VeryImagesozo

"I have no hard feelings against you"

That's too bad. I personally loathe people like yourself who have killed off their critical thinking in favor of their religious beliefs. Without your ilk the human race might have colonized the solar system by now.

[VeryImagesozo]

@MomoTheBellyDancer "First you say you can't study this god, and now you say there's evidence? Which is it? You can't have it both ways."

I understand that you want to limit me to only the method you approve. That's fine, eventhough I will not bow to your wish.

I can study about the presidency of Abraham Lincholn without the aid of empirical scientific experimentaion, and I study God's revelation of himself in the Bible and interpret his "fingerprint" in the physical universe.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@VeryImagesozo

"you want to limit me to only the method you approve"

It's the only method that produces RESULTS. It's the method that made it possible for you to post your jabbering on the internet, for one.

[VeryImagesozo]

@MomoTheBellyDancer At any rate, I am sure this little debate could go on forever and accomplish nothing, and since you expressed that you " loathe people like" me, which means that reading my posts only serve to stir up your anger against me and raise your blood pressure, which can't be good for your health, I see no since in contributing to that, so this will be my last post. Sincerely though, I do hope the best for you. Take care of yourself.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@VeryImagesozo

"I am sure this little debate could go on forever and accomplish nothing"

Well, the debate has been settled ages ago already. The supernatural has no place in science, period. I'm just hoping that other people who see this debate realize you're full of it.

[ThatOneQuestion]

@MomoTheBellyDancer Well said!

[VeryImagesozo]

@VeryImagesozo "That's too bad. I personally loathe people like yourself who have killed off their critical thinking in favor of their religious beliefs. Without your ilk the human race might have colonized the solar system by now."

I thought that you might feel that way, but I was'nt sure until you addressed it. Regardless, I don't hate you. I care about you and I only wish God's mercy and grace for you. Of course, you don't believe in God.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@VeryImagesozo

"Of course, you don't believe in God."

Of course not. Atheism is the default position.

[ExtantFrodo]

It's the lion's using the least energy to catch the slower deer that selects the faster deer as winners who get to reproduce.

It's the predator not using more energy than needed that is satisfied with the easy to see prey that leaves the camouflaged ones to breed their tricks.

[rusty2029]

So with this wonderful conservation there would seem to be a point at where all deer become faster than the best lazy lion. Natural selection is a circular argument. And you dodge the greater point about complexity and the origin of life.

Remember that even Darwin did not want to deal with how life started from nonliving origins...

[ExtantFrodo]

All physically bound things have physical limits. Deer bigin to make trade offs visa vi speed vrs stamina.

Hmm, did I dodge also the origin of the universe and everything? If you want to learn you are welcome ( and privileged to do so ). If YOU are lazy might I suggest CDK007's "Origin of..." series?

[TheScienceFoundation]

Throwing magic into gaps does not equate to intellectually fulfilled.

[rusty2029]

Throwing wishful science sounding conjecture into the gaps does seem to please the alleged intellectually fulfilled atheist.

...And don't forget the wishful hope that science can fill all the gaps either.

[TheScienceFoundation]

'Throwing wishful science sounding conjecture into the gaps does seem to please the alleged intellectually fulfilled atheist. '

No, ID doesn't please atheists at all, because it's pseudo-science.

Noone has ever said science will fill in all the gaps, and if it doesnt thats fine, an honest 'I don't know' is better than an emotional appeal of 'god did it'

[rusty2029]

ID is not pseudo-science but thanks for an example of the dogmatic defense of the circular argument of natural selection. Use inductive reasoning and you will find that few need to say that science fills all gaps. It is implied in the deep faith some have in an information gathering process that has been more incorrect then it has been correct. Science is permanently provisional to new data. So saying 'I don't know' is as valid as suggesting a Higher Power is involved. Don't obfuscate...

[TheScienceFoundation]

Yes, ID is pseudo-science, like for instance, I can ask you right now for one single piece of empirical data supporting it and you will dodge the question.

No, saying 'I don't know' is saying 'I don't know' saying 'higher power' is saying I do know, and it's a completely untestable force, by definition.

[rusty2029]

Try looking up the word pansermia to see that ID is a science. And it's one that atheists cling to when abiogenisis gets to be to big a problem. I wonder what science degree you have?

Did you know that saying 'I don't know' is just as untestable? Even some first principles of logic are untestable. Do you wish to throw out logic? Suggesting a higher power is not free from Descartes's method of doubt. One may point to knowledge while the other claims ignorance but both seem untestable.

[TheScienceFoundation]

Panspermia is a naturalistic ID hypothesis, and it doesn't actually solve anything, it only puts the problem elsewhere.

'I/we don't know is absolutely testable;

Can anyone empirically demonstrate the origin of life? Does anyone know, through actual observation, how life began?

[rusty2029]

--'I/we don't know is absolutely testable; LOL so ignorance is a testable information system according to thesciencefoundation. Do you have a science degree? Try and prove empirically that all reality can be proven empirically? You can't. I understand how science can be a religion for some. Try and investigate Gödel's incompleteness theorems and see how higher levels are always needed. In the realm of metaphysical reality saying 'don't know' is just as valid as suggesting a Higher Power.

[TheScienceFoundation]

Are you really trying to imply that you can't test for a lack of knowledge? You're up to 3 fallacies a post now, ad hominem, strawman and equivocation, until said higher power can be quantified and potentially falsified, it's not a valid proposition at all

[Jones103103]

@TheScienceFoundation

This implies that we can only know things that are testable. Which I think is absolutely false.

The fact of the matter is that both the ID theorist and the Evolutionist have a gap they are wanting to fill. The ID guy makes the point that when we see information this shows design. DNA has information encoded in it.

[TheScienceFoundation]

Codes we know were designed through observation doesn't translate to codes we don't know the origin of being coded by invalid inference. The difference about the gaps is the evolutionist, aka scientifically literate, has no problem with leaving them empty until real data is found.

[Jones103103]

See right now your filling the gap with science, in the form of; science will one day fill this gap.

We are not talking about mere codes like abababab but information. Any time science is dealing with the past we have to deal with what we know to fill in what we don't know. When ever we see information it is an indication of design. The fact is that we see information in DNA, so it's fair, from the evidence (information in the form of DNA) to say that the evidence points to design.

[Jones103103]

Further more there is the idea that you are presenting. Which is that we cannot know something that is not testable ,in the scientific scene. I submit that this is patently false.

[TheScienceFoundation]

What do we know that is not testable? And how do you know we know it?

[Jones103103]

Aesthetic truths, like "the sunrise is beautiful". Moral truths, like "it is wrong to murder". Logical and mathematical truths are not testable in a scientific scene. Truths like the belief in other minds, or the belief in the external world , or the belief that the world was not created five minutes ago and all belief that cannot be scientifically tested, but that we are all rational to hold. And ultimately science its self cannot be tested scientifically.

[TheScienceFoundation]

those aren't truths, those are opinions. Of course mathematical truths are testable, see; peano's postulate.

Yes, science works on some basic assumptions, like 'the universe exists' and 'we can learn something about it'

[Jones103103]

See ultimately your reasoning is self refuting, because if everything needs to be tested (in a scientific scene), and science can not be tested in this way than science is not true.

Further more all the statements you have made cannot be tested and are there for untrue.

This is the problem with this line or reasoning.

[TheScienceFoundation]

Sure science can be tested, propose a better way to understand reality than the current scientific method, if it consistently works, we'll change to it.

The only line of reasoning which is inherently problematic here is 'I know things which are true and haven't been tested' You can't know somethings true without testing it.

[Jones103103]

If we went to a lab, what would you do to test science? Or the statement "You can't know somethings true without testing it."? Further more how would you test logic using science?

You can't because science presupposes science and there for it would be self refuting.

I am perfectly rational in believing that the external world exists even though I have no way of getting outside of myself to test it. I have no way to show that I am not a brain in a jar.

[TheScienceFoundation]

Again, the only thing you have to assume to get to science is that reality exists. Science is the collective process of it's means of categorizing knowledge, you can test peer review by putting two evenly sized groups on the task of deducing most likely correct ideas, one group throws darts at a wall of ideas, one scrutinizes the ideas. You can test falsifiability by allowing magic as an explanation for an already understood constant, change gravity out for pixies and see where that gets you.

[Jones103103]

You need to know that reality exists, that logic is true, that mathematics works.

The point is you can't assume those things if you can't know somethings true without testing it, because you would have no way to know that that is true.

Thus, that line or reasoning is self-refuting and therefore false.

[TheScienceFoundation]

Yes, I've said twice now that all understanding of the universe begins with assumption. Working from the premise that the universe exists, I can logically and reasonably say that to know something about it is true, it has to be tested.

[Jones103103]

How can you test that assumption?

[TheScienceFoundation]

By being minimally observant.

[Jones103103]

How have you tested that you are not a brain in a jar, being made to think you are typing to me?

[TheScienceFoundation]

thats a positive assertion that would require its own positive evidence.

[Jones103103]

So you don't have a way of testing for this?

[TheScienceFoundation]

A way of testing an untestable negative? No, but science doesn't work by assuming a claim is true until it's disproven, science works via positive evidence.

[Jones103103]

If even one thing is untestable but reasonable to be held as true it refutes your argument.

[TheScienceFoundation]

Not really, something being reasonable to be held true is not the same as knowing it's true. It's reasonable to think that the sun will shine tomorrow, you can't know it as a fact until it does.

[Jones103103]

If we can't know that the external world is real than how can we know truth about the things in it?

[TheScienceFoundation]

Do you read my posts? I mean at all?

[Jones103103]

You don't see the problem in your reasoning? If I don't know that the external world is real because I can't test it then I can't know things about that world to be true representations of reality.

[TheScienceFoundation]

You're having to begin by assuming that it doesn't in your line of reasoning.

[Jones103103]

I don't have to assume at all that the external world does not exist. I just have to show that it can't be scientifically tested and therefore cannot be known to be true under your argument..

[TheScienceFoundation]

No, you have to assume that it doesn't exist to assume that it can't be tested.

[Jones103103]

I'm arguing that there are things that do exist that can't be tested, and gave examples. You now have a burden of proof to show that these things can be tested.

[TheScienceFoundation]

That wasn't the point we were arguing, blatant red herring, the point we were arguing is that something can't be known to be true unless testable.

[Jones103103]

Is it true that the external world exists, and how do you test for that?

[TheScienceFoundation]

Thats not testable.

[Jones103103]

Than if you can't know that the external world exists, how can you know anything about it is a true representation of reality?

[TheScienceFoundation]

and we're back to solely repeating ourselves.

[TheScienceFoundation]

No, that's leaving the gap empty for future findings, if nothing is found and evidenced that fits in the gap, then it will stay empty.

'When ever we see information it is an indication of design'

No, whenever we see artificial placement of inanimate non self replicating structures, it is an indication of design. That line of inductive reasoning in this context is horribly out of place, everything contains information, unless you're not using the information theory definition.

[Jones103103]

There's a distinct difference between a collection of rocks that fell down a hill in a random pile, and a collection or rocks the spell out "Hello TheScienceFoundation". Because one relays information and the other does not. Otherwise there is really no difference between that pile of rock and what you and I are typing here. This is the difference between agent causation and event causation.

[TheScienceFoundation]

Yes, in one pile, intelligence organized the inanimate non replicating rocks in a way to have meaning to said intelligence. An alphabet requires intelligent translation to serve a practical function, DNA does not.

[Jones103103]

DNA is not like the random pile of rock but like the organized pile. In that it contains information. The alphabet is the a way of one person getting the information in there mind, to another person's mind. The alphabet is not the information it is just the product of a mind transferring that information.

[TheScienceFoundation]

No, DNA is like the pile of rocks thats been replicating with variation for 3.8 billion years. Yes, the alphabet is information itself.

[Jones103103]

DNA contains the instructions needed for an organism to develop, survive and reproduce. To carry out these functions, DNA sequences must be converted into messages that can be used to produce proteins, which are the complex molecules that do most of the work in our bodies.

This is very different form rocks rolling down a hill. This is information.

[TheScienceFoundation]

It's a misnomer to call it a message, that's just begging the question. Nucleotides produce amino acids produce proteins.

You got one right, finally, it IS different from a rock rolling down a hill, rocks rolling down hills don't replicate with variation.

[Jones103103]

That came from the Genome website.

[TheScienceFoundation]

I'm disappointed that they would call dehydration synthesis a 'message'

[gabriele6sette]

Thank you, it's a pity slides are not visible.

[IDquest]

Thank you for posting this. Dr. Dembsi is a wonderful author and speaker.

[TheRealEricLester]

too bad his arguements are vacuous of any facts. you should listen to extant frodo up the page. and check out your local library