Not designed by reason of temporary insanity...
ROTFLMAO...
ROTFLMAO...
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
James bond 3rd:
I didn't say that the appearance of design equals proof of design. The appearance of design warrants a suspicion of design. Can you tell the difference?
According to this logic, appearance of guilt equals to proof of guilt. This guy doesn't know what is critical thinking.
I didn't say that the appearance of design equals proof of design. The appearance of design warrants a suspicion of design. Can you tell the difference?
Quote from Teleologist:
I didn't say that the appearance of design equals proof of design. The appearance of design warrants a suspicion of design. Can you tell the difference?
You used the word "inference." Maybe you think inference is closer to suspicion. But inference is in fact a form of proof:
Inference:
1. The act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.
2. The act of reasoning from factual knowledge or evidence.
Do you want to retract your posts claiming that the ID can be infered from empirical data?
It can be inferred that the referenced language is english.
From dictionary.com
inference
1. the act or process of inferring.
2. something that is inferred: to make rash inferences.
3. Logic.
a. the process of deriving the strict logical consequences of assumed premises.
b. the process of arriving at some conclusion that, though it is not logically derivable from the assumed premises, possesses some degree of probability relative to the premises.
c. a proposition reached by a process of inference.
From dictionary.com
inference
1. the act or process of inferring.
2. something that is inferred: to make rash inferences.
3. Logic.
a. the process of deriving the strict logical consequences of assumed premises.
b. the process of arriving at some conclusion that, though it is not logically derivable from the assumed premises, possesses some degree of probability relative to the premises.
c. a proposition reached by a process of inference.
Inference is the reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation.
Although "inference" denies the direct observation, it does however involve logical deduction or induction. In science, inference implies proof, and is distinct from speculation.
For example, one observes that the earth and other planets orbit around the sun, and that apples fall to the ground. From these observations, the law of gravity is inferred. The observations then constitute the empirical data that prove the law of gravity.
If you have empirical data from which ID can be inferred, then such empirical data constitute proof of ID.
Although "inference" denies the direct observation, it does however involve logical deduction or induction. In science, inference implies proof, and is distinct from speculation.
For example, one observes that the earth and other planets orbit around the sun, and that apples fall to the ground. From these observations, the law of gravity is inferred. The observations then constitute the empirical data that prove the law of gravity.
If you have empirical data from which ID can be inferred, then such empirical data constitute proof of ID.
Darwin's theory was pure inference...
A PRIMER ON INFERENCE
Inference is defined as the attempt to generalize on the basis of limited information. Information is always limited because it is impractical, in terms of time and cost, to obtain total knowledge about everything. If everything were known, there would be no need for inference. Since science does not claim to know everything, inference is behind all science, except in those few cases where everything is known about a whole population. It is important to note, also, that inference underlies most thinking, even the unscientific type. In this way, scientific inference is not unlike common sense. What distinguishes scientific inference is that the process is made explicit and follows certain rules, which are the subjects of this lecture.
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/308/308lect01.htm
A PRIMER ON INFERENCE
Inference is defined as the attempt to generalize on the basis of limited information. Information is always limited because it is impractical, in terms of time and cost, to obtain total knowledge about everything. If everything were known, there would be no need for inference. Since science does not claim to know everything, inference is behind all science, except in those few cases where everything is known about a whole population. It is important to note, also, that inference underlies most thinking, even the unscientific type. In this way, scientific inference is not unlike common sense. What distinguishes scientific inference is that the process is made explicit and follows certain rules, which are the subjects of this lecture.
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/308/308lect01.htm
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
Inference is the reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation.
Although "inference" denies the direct observation, it does however involve logical deduction or induction. In science, inference implies proof, and is distinct from speculation.
For example, one observes that the earth and other planets orbit around the sun, and that apples fall to the ground. From these observations, the law of gravity is inferred. The observations then constitute the empirical data that prove the law of gravity.
If you have empirical data from which ID can be inferred, then such empirical data constitute proof of ID.
Empirical data:
We don't see ignorance produce intelligence.
We see that every living being follows an orderly pattern of birth, life, and death, and bearing life that follows the same pattern. We don't see alterations from this pattern.
We see that every living being does whatever it can to survive.
Structure, order, consistent patterns, a drive to live and sustain life...all from ignorance?
Not a great scientific inference...
Even the unproved theories of big bang rely on the concept of orderly intelligent movements
All you have to do to counter these observations with ignorant chance theory is to show life forms that do not follow these patterns, and of course, show us how life is generated from non life as if by magic.
Now that would be a trick.
Now tell me from your simple observation, simple empiricism, the list of numbers below, are they the product of a computer program that generates random numbers (a process of intelligent programming) or are they just numbers I made up purely randomly, or pulled out a hat, or are they a combination of both...or is there actually a pattern?
20128 53721 01518 40699 20849 04710 38989 91322 56057 58573
00190 27157 83218 79446 92987 61357 38752 55424 94518 45205
23798 55475 32454 34611 39635 39981 74691 40836 30812 38563
85306 57995 68222 39055 43890 36956 84861 69624 04961 55439
We don't see ignorance produce intelligence.
We see that every living being follows an orderly pattern of birth, life, and death, and bearing life that follows the same pattern. We don't see alterations from this pattern.
We see that every living being does whatever it can to survive.
Structure, order, consistent patterns, a drive to live and sustain life...all from ignorance?
Not a great scientific inference...
Even the unproved theories of big bang rely on the concept of orderly intelligent movements
All you have to do to counter these observations with ignorant chance theory is to show life forms that do not follow these patterns, and of course, show us how life is generated from non life as if by magic.
Now that would be a trick.
Now tell me from your simple observation, simple empiricism, the list of numbers below, are they the product of a computer program that generates random numbers (a process of intelligent programming) or are they just numbers I made up purely randomly, or pulled out a hat, or are they a combination of both...or is there actually a pattern?
20128 53721 01518 40699 20849 04710 38989 91322 56057 58573
00190 27157 83218 79446 92987 61357 38752 55424 94518 45205
23798 55475 32454 34611 39635 39981 74691 40836 30812 38563
85306 57995 68222 39055 43890 36956 84861 69624 04961 55439
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
So is everything else in science. Inference is the central tool of science. If something is inferred, then it is considered proven in science.
So where are the empirical data from which ID can be inferred/proven?