quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
John, did you miss the whole point of inclusion of my data-observations? They merely pointed out the nature of the ID, not proving the ID itself. They were in response to Shraf’s objections that there were, essentially no empirical-observations to support the NATURE of an ID.
No, actually I didn't miss your point. Its just that whether or not this points to intelligent design or not is entirely subjective. Even calling this the "nature" of design doesn't help. You just end up with a description of observation and no theory at all-- photo no depth. Adding to that the idea of design is subjective, and kinda circular too. Question begging, that sort of thing.
quote:
ID is proved/suggested in other threads (i.e., by ‘cause-effect’ logic, ICs, delicate interdependent bio-/cosmic- complexities, kantian logic, parsimony-logic, etc.)
There is stuff we can see and stuff we kant see. The stuff we kant see is the real deal but sadly, we kant ever ever ever see it or know anything about it. Don't get me started on Kant.
And I'm not buying the parsimony logic bit. It is not the simpler solution to postulate an entity just outside the limits of our understanding. At best, you just buy a little time.
quote:
TEST RESULTS: Comparisons of (A) ‘SIN-CURSED’ observations and (B) ‘REDEMPTION’ observations:
You are already begging the question. You could as easily start off with 'drunken-god'/'sober-god' observations. Or Shiva/Vishnu. Or .... get it?
quote:
Many doubtless, may suggest it supports the ‘theistic’ ‘evolutional’ model of the creation as well. Many will reject the hypothesis outright.
I don't think this evidence necessarily supports anything. It's much too subjective. The problem with all your evidence is that you have to want to see ID to see it. It may be necessary to justify your beliefs but it isn't necessary for anything else.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com