The Dixie Challenge....

the supporting evidence behind ET is far more convincing and overweighs the logical fallacy of ID

1.) You have produced no evidence to support human evolution.

The evidence of human evolution is evident in great depth on the internet, in a multitude of publications, scientific journals and peer reviewed magazines. Do some research. Stop being the lazy fat crow, cawing on his dungheap..

2.) You have produced no evidence to support ET as a theory of origin.

Another Dixie strawman. No-one claims ET deals with origins. That is dealt under theories of abiogenesis.

3.) You have admitted abject bias toward the ID argument, thus disqualifying your 'peer review' of the facts.

If I review the notions of phrenology, and declare them unsound because they aren't supported, do I disqualify myself from commenting on the concept? Lazy attack, Dixie

4.) You have still not explained how certain validity can be given without absolute knowledge.

Validity is a logical mechanism. If the conclusion is supported by the premises, no matter how unsound the premises may be, the argument is valid. If they do not support the conclusion, the argument is invalid.

Can I explain that any simpler?

5.) ID is not based on logical fallacy, it is based on principles of science, biology, and overwhelming physical evidence, from DNA to microbiology and genetic coding, all of it points clearly to some form intelligent design. You look at the Universe, the very principles of Physics, the planet itself, the environment, atmosphere, rotation of the planet and even the wobble on it axis which causes the various seasons, which enables life to function. The perfectly balanced food chain, the circle of life, how their seems to be some symmetry to our universe and consciousness. All of it points to a design of some intelligence, and it defies the most perplexed logic to be anything else.

Wrong. ID is based on Paley's watchmaker analogy, which states that, if one day you were walking across a meadow, you came across a beautiful pocket watch, would you believe that watch came about by accident, or was it design. The notion states rightly that nature is much more complex and intricate than a pocket watch, why should we believe that nature wasn't designed.

This is presented as a logical syllogism as such:

P: Complex things created by humans are designed.
P: Nature is much more complex than human designed items.
Ergo, Nature must be designed.

This is non-sequiter. It doesn't follow. It assumes that what follows for one set (human designed things) follows for another set (nature)

Can I explain that any simpler?

Yes, I can. It also assumes that pattern equates to design.

You claim it has scientific basis, yet it produces no testable hypothesis, and as we all know, science is simply discovery through repeated observation. If ID produces no testable hypothesis, it cannot be considered science, if anything, it is a branch of theology, which is in itself a branch of anthropology.

:woot:

You are big on Einstein quotes, and you like to take them literally, so you must believe that God doesn't roll the dice. Einstein said it, and you need not "explain" what he meant, it is perfectly clear.

If I were to follow your sophist mentality I would add to what Einstein wa saying by ending up with an argument that Einstein said 'Dice playing is god.'

If I were to take your rendition of the quote without your mentality, I would say that 'God doesn't roll the dice' to mean that 'god' has no effect in the universe, making him an impotent eunach.... :shock:
 
Last edited:
If the conclusion is supported by the premises, no matter how unsound the premises may be, the argument is valid.

Okay, let's accept this point...

ID is based on Paley's watchmaker analogy, which states that, if one day you were walking across a meadow, you came across a beautiful pocket watch, would you believe that watch came about by accident, or was it design. The notion states rightly that nature is much more complex and intricate than a pocket watch, why should we believe that nature wasn't designed.

ID is valid theory, based on Paley's analogy alone, according to your own definition. So why do you constantly repudiate it? How can you dismiss ID as logical fallacy (illogical) if you have already said, no matter if the premise is unsound, the argument is still valid?

I see nothing wrong in Paley's analogy, and I think it makes an excellent comparison. I have often used a pencil as an example, if you found a pencil in an empty room on a desk, would you not conclude someone made the pencil, and it's unlikely the elements which form the pencil just came together and 'evolved' into what you see? Honestly, from my perspective, it takes a great deal more mythical faith to believe we all evolved from a single cell organism and not some intelligent force. But even if you are correct, and could actually prove that to be the case, you still have to ask, why? What caused all of this to suddenly 'happen' and how did it all start? Why is it no longer happening? From a single cell to billions of various different and complex life forms in a few billion years, it would seem that we would have new creatures evolving every day, it would seem that we would be virtually overflowing with new species every year, but that isn't the case. Sure, there are new strains of viruses and bacteria, and that is a form of evolution process, but for the vast number of complex creatures in our midst, you'd think we would have some tangible evidence over the past few centuries, of new species forming through this evolution process... what happened? Did your theory only work for a certain number of years and then stop? Did creatures evolve to a certain point and then abandon natural selection?

There are a billion questions regarding the concept that we evolved from a single cell, and if we didn't evolve that way, there is no other possible way for us to be here, other than a creator. So, you chose to believe in something wholly illogical and without any evidence to support. I believe, at some point, life was created by intelligent design of some kind. This is not the same as believing in "God", it could be any unknown force we simply do not know about at this time, or have any concept of whatsoever. Something made the 'watch', it didn't just "evolve" on the beach by chance. You can believe your myths if you like, I prefer to use Achems Razor... the simplest explanation is usually correct.
 
If I were to follow your sophist mentality I would add to what Einstein wa saying by ending up with an argument that Einstein said 'Dice playing is god.'

If I were to take your rendition of the quote without your mentality, I would say that 'God doesn't roll the dice' to mean that 'god' has no effect in the universe, making him an impotent eunach....
Click to expand...

But you don't, and you're not... you take Einstein's words literally, so you must agree that when he said "God doesn't roll the dice," and he meant what he said in that exact context, which clearly supports the theory of ID.

You have made some stunningly brilliant points in support of ID...
--Absolute knowledge does not exist, therefore, we simply don't know we weren't created by intelligent design, or that the theory is not valid.
--Science can never 'prove' anything, therefore, it doesn't offer an answer to the question of validity regarding ID or ET.
--Evolution does not deal with origin, therefore, it can not refute ID theory in any way, and is a completely separate debate.
--Common sense is merely a collection of prejudices, so any opinions formed by god-hating pseudo-scientists, are irrelevant to the discussion of ID theory.
--An argument is valid if the conclusion is based on premise, whether the premise is right or wrong, therefore, Paley's Analogy is a valid argument.
--Einstein means what he literally says, therefore, God doesn't roll the dice, and we are not the original product of 'chance'.

Some brilliant observations there, Arnold! Well done!
 
Dixie...When your other testicle descends, and you want to take another shot at trying to support Intelligent Design, I'll be more than happpy to -once again- rub your face in the mess you've made on the carpet.
 
ID is valid theory, based on Paley's analogy alone, according to your own definition. So why do you constantly repudiate it? How can you dismiss ID as logical fallacy (illogical) if you have already said, no matter if the premise is unsound, the argument is still valid?

That is because you have an understanding of logic that would embarrass a five year old.

An argument is invalid if the conclusion cannot be reached from the premises.

It is not possible to derive the conclusion 'Nature is designed' from the premises 'Human created complex things are designed' and 'Nature is more complex than human created things.'

It is, as I have stated ad nausium, assuming that what applies for one set applies for all sets.

Logical fallacy.

You can believe your myths if you like, I prefer to use Achems Razor... the simplest explanation is usually correct.

That's Occam's Razor, you plonker. If you apply Occam's Razor, then ID falls.

Simply because of this. If nature is so infinitely complex that it requires a designer, the designer must be even more complex and require a designer themselves.

The idea that some supernatural being created it all is far from the simplest notion, though it attracts simple and feeble minds.

But you don't, and you're not... you take Einstein's words literally, so you must agree that when he said "God doesn't roll the dice," and he meant what he said in that exact context, which clearly supports the theory of ID.

If someone where to say 'god doesn't roll the dice' in reference to the universe, it is clearly stating that 'god' has no effect, it doesn't roll the dice.

You see every statement as an endorsement of ID, no matter how ludicrous.

--Absolute knowledge does not exist, therefore, we simply don't know we weren't created by intelligent design, or that the theory is not valid.

No, AGAIN, you slow child, that absolute knowledge is unattainable doesn't mean all ideas are equal. Ideas are as strong as their supporting evidence and the reasoning behind them. The notion of ID is invalid because 'invalid' is a term in logic, and ID notions is based on a conclusion not reached by the premises.

--Science can never 'prove' anything, therefore, it doesn't offer an answer to the question of validity regarding ID or ET.

For the hundreth time for the slow kid. Validity is a term relating to logic. Science can reveal how strong or weak an argument is by testing its hypothesis against empirical evidence. It does provide us an answer as to whether an idea is worthy, or worthless.

Do I really have to go through this on a daily basis? You really are slow.

--Evolution does not deal with origin, therefore, it can not refute ID theory in any way, and is a completely separate debate.

You don't even know your own notions. ID deals with speciation, just as ET does. ID states speciation occurred through design, ET through natural selection.

--Common sense is merely a collection of prejudices, so any opinions formed by god-hating pseudo-scientists, are irrelevant to the discussion of ID theory.

This doesn't even make sense. Try rewriting it so it does...

--An argument is valid if the conclusion is based on premise, whether the premise is right or wrong, therefore, Paley's Analogy is a valid argument.

Errr, again for the slow kid. It doesn't because the conclusion isn't reached by the premises (s, Dixie, if it were based on one premise it would be inductive)

--Einstein means what he literally says, therefore, God doesn't roll the dice, and we are not the original product of 'chance'.

If 'god' doesn't roll dice, he has no effect whatsoever, and if he does exist is little more than an impotent eunach.


Really Dixie, you are presenting no new arguments in support of your case, you are merely ignoring what I post and restating the same tired points that I have refuted ad nausium.

If you actually understood what was going on, you'd realise how unsubstantial and defeated your case is...
 
I have to wonder if you even read what you post...

First you said...

If the conclusion is supported by the premises, no matter how unsound the premises may be, the argument is valid.

...then, you say....

An argument is invalid if the conclusion cannot be reached from the premises.

Now, excuse me, I might be the only one who sees this, but I believe this a complete 180 degree contradiction of statements. ...And you want to talk about MY logic? You don't even seem to have any logic, of course, one wouldn't expect logic from someone who has abandoned common sense.

Validity is a term relating to logic.

Of which you know little about, obviously.

Science can reveal how strong or weak an argument is by testing its hypothesis against empirical evidence. It does provide us an answer as to whether an idea is worthy, or worthless.

No it doesn't, it can't provide you with any 'absolute knowledge' according to you. Again, you are trying to argue both sides here, and it doesn't meet the test of basic logic. Both can't be true, Science either proves things and gives us absolute answers, or it doesn't. If Science provides answers of whether something is "worthy" or "has more weight" or is "valid" ...then it is impossible for us to not have 'absolute knowledge', and if Science doesn't provide answers or make conclusions, it can't provide 'absolute knowledge'.

What you are essentially trying to argue is, We know A is better than B, but we are never certain. It's a complete contradiction of logic, then again, what else is new with you?
 
"I have to wonder if you even read what you post...

First you said...

If the conclusion is supported by the premises, no matter how unsound the premises may be, the argument is valid.

...then, you say....

An argument is invalid if the conclusion cannot be reached from the premises.

Now, excuse me, I might be the only one who sees this, but I believe this a complete 180 degree contradiction of statements. ...And you want to talk about MY logic? You don't even seem to have any logic, of course, one wouldn't expect logic from someone who has abandoned common sense."


Dixie, you blithering idiot. Let me break this isnto child-sized chunks for you...

"If the conclusion is supported by the premises, no matter how unsound the premises may be, the argument is valid."

It is irrelevant how unsound premises are, as they are not what one is trying to prove. If one says "If the sky is green, then the water must be blue...The sky is green, therefore the water is blue"...this is a VALID argument. The validity of the argument is determined by whether the conclusion is logically derived from the premise. Whether the premise itself is correct or incorrect is IRRELEVANT when it comes to the VALIDITY of the conclusion.

An argument is invalid if the conclusion cannot be reached from the premises.

If one says "If the sky is green, then the water must be blue...The sky is purple, therefore the water is blue"...This is NOT a valid argument, as the conclusion is NOT supported by the premise.

"No it doesn't, it can't provide you with any 'absolute knowledge' according to you."
Not just according to him, according to all intelligent, educated, intellectually honest people.

"Again, you are trying to argue both sides here, and it doesn't meet the test of basic logic."

Incorrect.

"Both can't be true, Science either proves things and gives us absolute answers, or it doesn't."

Correct. It isn't both. Science uses INDUCTIVE REASONING to produce EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, by which a HYPOTHESIS is either supported, or not. PROOF comes from DEDUCTIVE REASONING, by which PREMISES are run through CONDITIONS, and the True/Not True (p/~p) nature of the statement is determined.

Due to the fact that we do not have absolutely known premises from which to DEDUCE answers, we use INDUCTION to determine LIKELIHOOD.

You've been taught this a dozen times Dixie. it is fucking pathetic that you posssess such a mixture of intellectual derth, as well as intellectual dishonesty, that you cannot internalize the very basics of reasoning.


"If Science provides answers of whether something is "worthy" or "has more weight" or is "valid" ...then it is impossible for us to not have 'absolute knowledge', and if Science doesn't provide answers or make conclusions, it can't provide 'absolute knowledge'."

Apparently, you cannot grasp the difference between Absolute and Relative knowledge. Absolute knowledge means that you CANNOT BE WRONG. This is known as INFALLIBILITY...You know, a quality only GOD is supposed to possess?

Relative knowledge is WHAT HUMANS HAVE. We have knowledge that is RELATIVE to our senses, and relative to our reasoning capacity (or, in your case, relative to a chimpanzee).

"What you are essentially trying to argue is, We know A is better than B, but we are never certain. It's a complete contradiction of logic, then again, what else is new with you?"

Once again, incorrect. What the man is arguing is "According to this tried and true method, we can state that A is MORE LIKELY than B"


Also, the fact remains that you continue to try to represent ID as if it follows the method, when it obviously does not. Then, when this is pointed out in excruciating detail, you attack the method itself.

Your tactics are right up there with "Nyah, Nyah, you're a big poopyhead!".

Once again, Dixie...when you grow a set, challenge me to a debate concerning whether ID is a product of The Scientific Method. I'll eventually have a free moment to hand you the beat-down you so richly deserve.
 
Absolute knowledge means that you CANNOT BE WRONG.

Right... I know absolutely, baring some cosmic catastrophic event, the sun will rise in the East tomorrow. I know absolutely, when there are no clouds in daytime hours, the sky is blue. I know absolutely, regardless of what I say on this message board, some mental retard is going to challenge me.

I believe mankind has all sorts of 'absolute knowledge'. You want to call it "relative" knowledge, but everything is "relative" when you get down to it. Absolution is certainty, and you can't say you are certain one thing is more valid than another, but you are not absolute. This contradict logic.

You can say, in a controlled lab environment, it is proper to always assume absolute knowledge and common sense don't exist. I will agree with that statement, and I think it is what Arnold is getting confused about. You seem to want to meld science into philosophy on us, and that is all good and well when you are trying to make the argument for belief in some mythical evolution, but the same argument can be made for some 'mythical creation'.

I am pointing this out to you, and all I see is mass contradiction and confusing explanations. Why don't we simplify your viewpoint: You want to say that Science supports ET and refutes ID, and you get there by claiming Science is somehow empirical when it comes to ET, and yet this same Science can never conclude or prove anything, so it can't support ID.

My point is very simple. Science does not prove anything. It doesn't prove ET, and in fact, no evidence for human evolution has ever been presented. If science doesn't "prove" it can also not "disprove", therefore, it can't disprove ID. Both ET and ID are valid and legitimate theories, have valid and legitimate scientific arguments, and both remain inconclusive from a science standpoint. To claim otherwise, as you and Arnold have, is a contradiction of the very methods and principles you espouse. You violated the most important rule the moment you dismissed ID. Science doesn't make conclusions, it continues to question. You've made a conclusion regarding ID, and this is not conducive with scientific principle, neither is allowing your personal beliefs to prejudice your view. As Einstein would say, your personal "common sense" on whether a God exists, is a prejudice, and it makes your objectivity invalid. You have done, as Arnold revealed, dismissed ID at "first hurdle", being your own personal spiritual beliefs.

Science doesn't dismiss, it examines and explores possibilities... even the ones you are most afraid of!
 
First you said...

If the conclusion is supported by the premises, no matter how unsound the premises may be, the argument is valid.

...then, you say....

An argument is invalid if the conclusion cannot be reached from the premises.

Now, excuse me, I might be the only one who sees this, but I believe this a complete 180 degree contradiction of statements. ...And you want to talk about MY logic? You don't even seem to have any logic, of course, one wouldn't expect logic from someone who has abandoned common sense.

You have serious, serious comprehension problems.

Both of my statements say the same thing.

No. 1 states 'If the conclusion is supported by the premises (no matter how unsound the premises may be) the argument is valid'.

No. 2 states 'the argument is invalid if the conclusion isn't reached by the premises.'

No. 2 is merely the inverse of No.1 ha ha ha!

If this weren't too long it would be a great signature....
 
Of which you know little about, obviously.

Ooooh, yet another ad hominem...

Science can reveal how strong or weak an argument is by testing its hypothesis against empirical evidence. It does provide us an answer as to whether an idea is worthy, or worthless.

No it doesn't, it can't provide you with any 'absolute knowledge' according to you.

Serious, serious comprehension problems. Didn't declare that science could provide absolute knowledge, I stated:

Science can reveal how strong or weak an argument is by testing its hypothesis against empirical evidence. It does provide us an answer as to whether an idea is worthy, or worthless.
Click to expand...
 
My point is very simple. Science does not prove anything. It doesn't prove ET, and in fact, no evidence for human evolution has ever been presented. If science doesn't "prove" it can also not "disprove", therefore, it can't disprove ID. Both ET and ID are valid and legitimate theories, have valid and legitimate scientific arguments, and both remain inconclusive from a science standpoint.

Again, for the umpteenth time. Just because absolute knowledge is impossible doesn't mean all ideas are equal.

Some ideas are epistemologically sound, some are not. Whilst we cannot discard any idea, no matter how unsound, out of hand, we can consider and test it epistemologically. If it is found wanting, until new information relating to it comes along, it can be deemed unworthy.

I have explained ad nausium how ID is epistemologically unsound. I have presented syllogisms to explain the invalidity of the watchmaker analogy it is based on, and to explain the non-sequiter fallacy in the assumption that patterns equate to design. I have explained how IC is merely attribution of functional evolution.

None of these points you have addressed. You have done little except ignore, misrepresent arguments, create strawmen and ad hominem attacks.

I'm starting to think that, all joking aside, you are a little slow...
 
Science can reveal how strong or weak an argument is by testing its hypothesis against empirical evidence.

How can science reveal this if science can make no determination? I don't get that! You keep telling me, we don't have 'absolute knowledge' yet, you continue to establish 'absoluteness' with what science can reveal. If there is no absolute knowledge, there is no "empirical evidence", it's impossible for it to exist because our knowledge (which any empirical evidence would be based on) is not "absolute" ...as you have argued.

You are a walking, talking contradiction, Arnold. You say one thing in one post, and then say the complete opposite in the next, then try to claim they both mean the same thing! You'll rely on science to "prove" evolution theory is valid, then argue that science can't prove anything, therefore ID is invalid. Let's face it, the truth is, you want to have it both ways, you want me to accept science theory as fact with regard to ET, while understanding science theory is not fact with regard to ID. I fully understand your motives, I just don't understand why you don't realize I ain't buying your bullshit.

We can agree, science doesn't "prove" anything, and it certainly hasn't "proven" that humans ever evolved from other species. We can also agree, science can not "prove" intelligent design, the same standard applies both ways. But to try and argue out of both sides of your mouth, two completely contradicting and illogical points, is just patently stupid. If you want to suggest that science has presented us with valid evidence of evolution, you must accept that science has also presented valid evidence for intelligent design. Again, it can't be one way for your theory and another way for my theory, that simply defies logic and science principles.

The two theories are exclusive, they don't really even relate to the same argument. ET is a theory dealing with speciation, and ID is a theory dealing with origin of life. ET could very well have been a tool utilized by an intelligent designer, you have not ruled out this possibility, and you can't. If you insist you have, you aren't much of a scientist, and don't really know much about how science theory works, because that ain't it.

Einstein would tell you to stop letting your collection of prejudices interfere with the scientific method. Because you profess to not believe in a God, doesn't mean your belief is a basis for scientific conclusion, and that is precisely what you've done here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top