Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-30-2017 12:44 PM
409 online now:
14174dm, Coyote, Faith, jar, PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx (7 members, 402 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,826 Year: 10,432/21,208 Month: 3,519/2,674 Week: 62/873 Day: 62/76 Hour: 5/9

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56789
10
Author Topic:   Would ID/Creationists need new, independant dating techniques??
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12598
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 136 of 144 (618760)
06-06-2011 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Chuck77
06-06-2011 1:30 AM


Re: ID and age of earth
In fact there IS an important issue relating to the age of the Earth.

ID claims to be science.

ID's aim is to establish an alternative explanation for the history of life on Earth. And the age of the Earth is relevant to that.

The scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows that the Earth is very old.

So ID SHOULD be taking a clear old-Earth stance as a movement, right ? But they don't. In fact the ID movement refuses to take a position. Aren't they just pandering to Young Earth Creationists by trying to smooth over the gap between OEC and YEC ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Chuck77, posted 06-06-2011 1:30 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-06-2011 3:29 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15803
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 137 of 144 (618779)
06-06-2011 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by PaulK
06-06-2011 2:11 AM


Re: ID and age of earth
So ID SHOULD be taking a clear old-Earth stance as a movement, right ? But they don't.

Well, that depends on who they are. Behe is very definitely old-earth. And believes in common descent ...

Aren't they just pandering to Young Earth Creationists by trying to smooth over the gap between OEC and YEC ?

I think it's more basic than that --- in order to be a "movement" at all they have to ignore their differences and focus on what appears to be the only thing they agree on. A friend of mine told me the other day about when he was a Mormon and found himself in the same demonstrations as radical lesbians ... when, and only when, the issue was pornography. Obviously when they were standing side by side waving the same banners there were some things that they tacitly agreed not to discuss.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by PaulK, posted 06-06-2011 2:11 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 572 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 138 of 144 (618862)
06-06-2011 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Chuck77
06-06-2011 1:30 AM


Re: ID and age of earth
Chuck77 writes:

Stephen Meyers is one of the most prominant ID'ers out there and he believes in an old earth. The point of ID is to simply SHOW design. It had NOTHING to do with the age of the earth. It's not an important issude when it comes to ID.

That depends a lot on which cDesign Proponentist you talk to. Yes, some ID supporters will agree completely with the scientifically-accepted age estimate of the Earth. Some will even agree completely with the Theory of Evolution, and simply tack on "...and that was guided by an intelligence with a specific goal."

But there is also a subset of ID supporters who are just standard Young-Earth Biblical Creationists under a different name. They make no secret that the "intelligence" in question is the Christian God, and they believe that "proof of design" means "proof of literal Genesis, with no evolution involved."

The two can be separate, just as abiogenesis and evolution are separate...but not every supporter does so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Chuck77, posted 06-06-2011 1:30 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Chuck77, posted 06-07-2011 2:01 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 144 (618904)
06-07-2011 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Rahvin
06-06-2011 6:01 PM


Re: ID and age of earth
The point of ID (which is seperate from Creationism) is to SHOW design. Not how old the earth is. Intelligent Design shows the complexity of life. Michael Behe for instance makes a great case for ID. Kenneth Miller summed it up to a mouse trap. ALL that work Behe has done and Miller think's he refuted it in 5 minutes with a mouse trap. Silly. Cells are complex no way around it. Age of the earth doesnt matter. If it does for some, so be it. There are some Creationist who believe in an old earth to, so what. It doesn't discredit the movement because the main point of ID is design, not age.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Rahvin, posted 06-06-2011 6:01 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by PaulK, posted 06-07-2011 2:16 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12598
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 140 of 144 (618908)
06-07-2011 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Chuck77
06-07-2011 2:01 AM


Re: ID and age of earth
quote:

The point of ID (which is seperate from Creationism) is to SHOW design

ID is not separate from creationism. ID started as a new name for creationism, as is well known since the Dover case.

quote:

Not how old the earth is.

Agreed. The age of the Earth is not part of ID. Therefore if ID is scientific it should accept the scientifically established age of the Earth. So why does the ID movement refuse to take a stand on the matter ?

quote:

Michael Behe for instance makes a great case for ID.

Off topic, but no he didn't. In fact he never finished his irreducible complexity argument and seems to have given up working on it. Please start another thread if you wish to discuss it further.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Chuck77, posted 06-07-2011 2:01 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

    
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 144 (621463)
06-26-2011 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zubbbra25
10-18-2010 1:30 PM


ID or Creationism?
Zubbbra25 writes:

Topic: Would ID/Creationists need new, independant dating techniques??

I was sucked in my the topic heading. In the OP ID isn't mentioned, only Creationism. Maybe it was included in the heading because people think they are one in the same? They aren't. Just like The TOE and Abiogenesis are different, so are ID and Creationism. Im not sure this is the right thread to discuss the matter ( the difference between ID and Creationism). Is there one?

Anyway, ID would have no need for new dating techniques as it deals with complex biological structures and so forth. Not Age.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zubbbra25, posted 10-18-2010 1:30 PM Zubbbra25 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by AZPaul3, posted 06-26-2011 9:59 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 143 by Taq, posted 06-27-2011 6:12 PM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3427
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 142 of 144 (621479)
06-26-2011 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Chuck77
06-26-2011 6:11 AM


Re: ID or Creationism?
You might look at Does intelligent design have creationist roots?. It appears to still be open.

The problem you are going to have, Chuck77, is that the history of ID as a creationist subterfuge is well documented. That history and the evolution from creationism to creation science to intelligent design (and the legal reasons for the changes) will be impossible to deny.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Chuck77, posted 06-26-2011 6:11 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6098
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 143 of 144 (621653)
06-27-2011 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Chuck77
06-26-2011 6:11 AM


Re: ID or Creationism?
Anyway, ID would have no need for new dating techniques as it deals with complex biological structures and so forth. Not Age.

So ID does not attempt to explain how new biological features appeared in the fossil record over time?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Chuck77, posted 06-26-2011 6:11 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 278 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 144 of 144 (622178)
07-01-2011 2:06 PM


ID is based on a logical fallacy.
Intelligent Design or Irreducible Complexity is essentially an argument from incredulity. That is, I don't understand it - therefore my much "simpler explanation" must be true.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

More traditionally ID, IC and their ilk is a form of "God of the Gaps." If you can't explain it, some supreme being must have done it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Both "Argument from Incredulity" and "God of the Gaps" are intellectually lazy arguments.


  
Prev1
...
56789
10
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017