Philosophy Discussion Forums

Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD wrote: ↑December 17th, 2023, 8:53 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑December 17th, 2023, 8:25 pm

Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD wrote: ↑December 17th, 2023, 2:13 pm
However, there have been more than enough of scientific evidence
in support of the scientific theory of INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

The idea of intelligent design is a non starter when you have a little knoweldge of natural history.
There are so many oddities that no intelligence would have eer allowed as to make the idea completely absurd.

Sculptor, listen carefully, because I will tell you
which idea is a non starter, pal.

The idea that a single living cell could be naturally
evolved via RANDOM mutations into Homo sapiens
over a mere 4 billion years is much worse than a non starter.
It is a step backward, a natural counter-evolution,
or de-evolution, of human intelligence.

And what is your example or evidence for this?

And what is your alternative? That a sky Daddy clicked his fingers and did it in a week?
If so why did he makes so many ridiculous mistakes?

When he starts calling you Pal, and telling you to listen carefully... Well, prick up y'rears

As for mistakes, what intelligent designer would run the male reproductive and urinary tracts together? Prostate problems, anyone? Too, silly for words! But he's a Dr + PhD, right?

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑December 18th, 2023, 8:45 am When he starts calling you Pal, and telling you to listen carefully... Well, prick up y'rears

As for mistakes, what intelligent designer would run the male reproductive and urinary tracts together? Prostate problems, anyone? Too, silly for words! But he's a Dr + PhD, right?

For some people, the scientific theory of Intelligent Design seems to imply a Designer (Creator), or a team of Designers, and this is where science ends and religious beliefs start.

To be properly scientifically skeptical, and to remain within the realm of science, we need to stay with scientific evidence only, and the scientific theory of Intelligent Design has presented irrefutable pieces of clear scientific evidence that it was simply impossible for certain biological structures and processes to evolve via random mutations and natural selection.

Other than that, in general, the idea that via random mutations a single living cell could possibly evolve all the way to Homo sapiens, and everything in-between, is absurd to say the least.

It is pure nonsense that doesn't stand up even to a minimal scientific scrutiny.

For example, Bill Gates and his Microsoft Corp started from MS-DOS 1.0 and after about 30 years, now there is Microsoft WIndows 12.

MS-DOS 1.0 was a basic computer operating system, and Microsoft WIndows 12 is still a computer operating system, just a bit more complex. That is all.

If the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection really works so well, then why don't we apply it to Microsoft WIndows 12, so it will eventually naturally randomly evolve into a Conscious Artificial Intelligence, like here:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=18526&p=451308#p451308

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑December 18th, 2023, 6:36 am
And what is your alternative?

That a sky Daddy clicked his fingers and did it in a week?

It is a very good question!

The way I see it, the religious hypothesis that some single Creator God, or a team of creator gods, caused the Big Bang to create the Universe:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=19190&p=451336#p451336

does not answer the obvious simple question: Why does this God, or gods, exist to begin with?

Just because we can safely eliminate this religious hypothesis as a pseudo-explanation which kicks the can down the road so to say, it does not automatically prove that the absurd non-scientific pseudo-hypothesis of Darwinian Evolution must be true.

All we have for now is an irrefutable scientific evidence of what we can reasonably call an intelligent design.

Logically reasoning backward, we can safely claim that had the Universe not been naturally as "intelligent" as it is, it would have not been able to function at all.

Such universe, at best, would have been a heap of useless random junk of literally cosmic proportions.

How could random chaos (Big Bang) ever produce intelligent working order? It would have been the greatest MIRACLE of all, i.e. another absurd case of religious fantasy!


So, the honest answer to your above excellent question is: NOBODY HAS THE FOGGIEST CLUE.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑December 18th, 2023, 6:36 am
And what is your alternative ??

Sculptor, if you ever feel that your opponent's claim is stupid and wrong, then ask them an excellent intelligent question, such that your opponent will have no good answer to.

This is how a true philosophical debate really works, my friend.

Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD wrote: ↑December 18th, 2023, 2:45 pm the scientific theory of Intelligent Design has presented irrefutable pieces of clear scientific evidence that it was simply impossible for certain biological structures and processes to evolve via random mutations and natural selection.

I notice no actual evidence has been quoted, or especially how it falsifies the prevailing view. Most of the 'refutations' I've seen seem fallaciously based on incredulity. Such fallacious arguments are refuted right out of the gate. Maybe you have something else. We may never know.

Other than that, in general, the idea that via random mutations a single living cell could possibly evolve all the way to Homo sapiens, and everything in-between, is absurd to say the least.

Sounds like incredulity to me. My condolences on your inability to comprehend it.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑December 18th, 2023, 6:36 am And what is your alternative? That a sky Daddy clicked his fingers and did it in a week?

I've always heard the term 'sky captain', but that works as well.

Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD wrote: ↑December 18th, 2023, 3:31 pm The way I see it, the religious hypothesis that some single Creator God, or a team of creator gods, caused the Big Bang to create the Universe

That is an attempt at an explanation for the universe, not in any way an alternative to evolution theory. The big bang theory doesn't posit ready-designed humans popping directly out of the bang. In other words, the comment is off topic.

does not answer the obvious simple question: Why does this God, or gods, exist to begin with?

That is a problem with any realist philosophy. How to explain the existence of whatever you consider to be fundamentally real.
The view is a philosophical interpretation and does not qualify as a theory.

All we have for now is an [alleged] irrefutable scientific evidence of what we can reasonably call an intelligent design.

FTFY

So, the honest answer to your above excellent question is: NOBODY HAS THE FOGGIEST CLUE.

It seems to be you without a clue, armed only with incredulity and allegations of irrefutable evidence. The consensus view on the other hand is held by those with far more than just a clue. It isn't proven, but the evidence for it is overwhelming. I've seen no ID alternative presented at all, so it's only there for those with faith: belief despite evidence to the contrary.

This is a philosophy forum after all, so those asserting such a view are welcome, if not in any way persuasive. Your intent seems not to be to persuade though.

Halc wrote: ↑December 18th, 2023, 4:54 pm
I notice no actual evidence has been quoted, or especially how it falsifies the prevailing view. Most of the 'refutations' I've seen seem fallaciously based on incredulity. Such fallacious arguments are refuted right out of the gate.

Did you expect me to quote all the scientific evidence in one post for you?
No worries, I will keep quoting the evidence with pleasure!


BTW, your "prevailing view" is long dead, pal.

Go, and refute this :

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2818&p=451372#p451372

Halc wrote: ↑December 18th, 2023, 4:54 pm
It isn't proven, but the evidence for it is overwhelming!

It is overwhelming, but only to you, pal.

BTW, it isn't proven, because it's been dis-proven.

Quantum experiments disprove materialism
of the Darwinian random no-Evolution nonsense:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3616&p=451374#p451374

Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD wrote: ↑December 18th, 2023, 3:31 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑December 18th, 2023, 6:36 am
And what is your alternative?

That a sky Daddy clicked his fingers and did it in a week?

It is a very good question!

The way I see it, the religious hypothesis that some single Creator God, or a team of creator gods, caused the Big Bang to create the Universe:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=19190&p=451336#p451336

does not answer the obvious simple question: Why does this God, or gods, exist to begin with?

Just because we can safely eliminate this religious hypothesis as a pseudo-explanation which kicks the can down the road so to say, it does not automatically prove that the absurd non-scientific pseudo-hypothesis of Darwinian Evolution must be true.

There is ove 150 years of confirmatory science to establish evolution. But the idea of evolution goes back much further than that. Even Aristotle talked about the possibility.

All we have for now is an irrefutable scientific evidence of what we can reasonably call an intelligent design.

Logically reasoning backward, we can safely claim that had the Universe not been naturally as "intelligent" as it is, it would have not been able to function at all.

Such universe, at best, would have been a heap of useless random junk of literally cosmic proportions.

How could random chaos (Big Bang) ever produce intelligent working order? It would have been the greatest MIRACLE of all, i.e. another absurd case of religious fantasy!


So, the honest answer to your above excellent question is: NOBODY HAS THE FOGGIEST CLUE.

Yes, well this seems to be your problem in that you are arguing from ignorance rather then looking into the facts of the matter.

Let me suggest you look into the "design" of he Larygeal nerve.
This nerve which operates the Larynx.
In mammals, amphibians, and birds this passes under the aortic arch, to and from the larynx and the brain. This is somewhat inconvenient , and can lead to serious neuropathy.
In fish this aortic arch is associated with the gills to which the larynx's developemtn owes its origin.
This is all fine for fish, but as evolution carried on and necks got longer this became increasingly ridicuous.
Horse, in particular can get equine recurrent laryngeal neuropathy.
The anials with the longest neck such as giraffes the nerve is over 4 metres long traveling from the brain in to the chest and right back up to the neck.
No intelligence designed this.
How do you account for it.

Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD wrote: ↑December 18th, 2023, 4:00 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑December 18th, 2023, 6:36 am
And what is your alternative ??

Sculptor, if you ever feel that your opponent's claim is stupid and wrong, then ask them an excellent intelligent question, such that your opponent will have no good answer to.

This is how a true philosophical debate really works, my friend.

FIne, so what is your answer?

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑December 18th, 2023, 8:24 pm
FIne, so what is your answer?

This is my answer:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2818&p=451372#p451372

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑December 18th, 2023, 8:23 pm
There is over 150 years of confirmatory science to establish evolution.

While you have been sculpting, science has been making
rapid progress, and all your150 years old "confirmatory science"
was refuted many years ago:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2818&p=451372#p451372

Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD wrote: ↑December 18th, 2023, 6:21 pm Go, and refute this : [link to post made in a 9-year dead thread]

The post of yours reads "YES !!! The scientific theory of Intelligent Design is the best scientific explanation available!"

This is a mere assertion, refuted just as easily by not accepting that which was asserted. No evidence is provided.
It was a reply to a more wordy post that pretty much makes the same assertion again without any specific evidence.
OK, you've identified a fellow science denier. That's pretty easy to do. There are websites dedicated to it and they even hold conventions to separate the deniers from their money.

Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD wrote: ↑December 18th, 2023, 7:28 pm It is overwhelming, but only to you.

In a room with just the two of us, yes, only to me. But there's not just the two of us.
The ones that count are those who earned respect in the relevant fields. The rest of us don't much matter. It isn't a matter of a vote.
I notice you provide no alternative theory, I mean one actually worked out. All you have is a name, which isn't a theory, merely a title.
When did humans (or whatever our earliest ancestors were) get created? Why are all the things that were around 50 million years ago extinct if they were designed? Pretty poor design if they keep having to manufacture new models and ship them in via Amazon trucks or something. Has anyone ever witnessed a new species being delivered? Is there a link to an actual ID theory that explains all empirical data as much as evolution does?
I mean, ID is usually religion based. 6000 years ago, God poofed everything into existence at once, maybe including long-dead things like Dinosaurs (fighting empirical evidence all the way) or alternatively just the bones were put there but dinos never actually lived (more plausible, more akin to last-Tuesdayism, a view that cannot be falsified). I have no clue if you even have a workable idea in mind because it's all just bluster: Assertions about some hypothetical alternative theory, the existence of which seems entirely fictional.

it's been dis-proven.

The word is 'falsified', and an assertion is not a falsification. You don't seem to get that.

Quantum experiments disprove materialism

I'm inclined to agree with that, but it depends on what you mean by materialism.
It means that material is fundamental, and nothing else. QM pretty much tells a different story. The statement seems irrelevant.

Halc wrote: ↑December 18th, 2023, 9:58 pm
... more akin to last-Tuesdayism, a view that cannot be falsified.

Can Darwinian view of Evolution be falsified, pal ?

Has there even been one scientific attempt to falsify this view ?

No.

Why ?

Because there is no point in falsifying an obviously false view!

Halc wrote: ↑December 18th, 2023, 9:58 pm
The statement seems irrelevant.

Exactly like all your statements in reply to my scientific and philosophical proofs.