Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Give your one best shot - for special creation
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 1 of 7 (6477)
03-10-2002 2:54 PM


Here is another focussed challenge:
What is the single most compelling argument that, for you, shows that the diversity of life today is the result of special creation?
(To keep focussed, I have posted another topic for arguments against evolution, so it would be good if you could avoid arguments of the form "I believe in special creation because I find it more persuasive than evolution." What I am looking for here is arguments that directly support special creation.)

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by John Paul, posted 03-10-2002 4:05 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 7 (6482)
03-10-2002 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mister Pamboli
03-10-2002 2:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
Here is another focussed challenge:
What is the single most compelling argument that, for you, shows that the diversity of life today is the result of special creation?
(To keep focussed, I have posted another topic for arguments against evolution, so it would be good if you could avoid arguments of the form "I believe in special creation because I find it more persuasive than evolution." What I am looking for here is arguments that directly support special creation.)

John Paul:
Life itself is testimony to a Special Creation. It exhibits CSI and IC. You can falsify that premise by showing life could originate via purely natural processes.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-10-2002 2:54 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by joz, posted 03-10-2002 4:31 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 4 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-10-2002 8:59 PM John Paul has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 7 (6488)
03-10-2002 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by John Paul
03-10-2002 4:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Life itself is testimony to a Special Creation. It exhibits CSI and IC. You can falsify that premise by showing life could originate via purely natural processes.
Same answer:
Muller, Nobel prize winning biologist, put forward IC as caused by evolution in the 1930`s (originaly proposed said IC in 1910`s) so IC really is not an issue for evolution, I have provided you with this information before, untill you show that his work was flawed and evolution cannot produce IC you cannot base an argument against evolution on IC...
The very definition of CSI permits it to occur naturaly, this possibility is absent from the EF, thus EF is inherrantly flawed by definition of CSI.
Untill you accept that it is possible in theory for laws acting on a system to produce CSI (as is permited by the definition above) and stop automaticaly gainsaying every proposed example there is no point asking for one as you will say it exhibits CSI and is thus designed.....
Which is wrong according to the very definition of CSI....
JP your arguments are eliptical with an eccentricity of 0.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by John Paul, posted 03-10-2002 4:05 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 4 of 7 (6493)
03-10-2002 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by John Paul
03-10-2002 4:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
Life itself is testimony to a Special Creation. It exhibits CSI and IC. You can falsify that premise by showing life could originate via purely natural processes.

Thanks for answering, John Paul. Let argument commence!
I wonder if you would clarify two points?
1. My original "challenge" was to ask for your best shot on whether the diversity of life was the result of special creation, not whether life originated by special creation.
I was thinking here of theistic evolutionists. Such might accept a divine origin of life in some form, or at least ascribe some meaning to "God created", but hold that evolution is entirely responsible for the diversity of life. However, I think I can see from your other posts that you tend to regard special creation as responsible for the diversity of life too.
So, could you possibly elaborate on how CSI or IC supports arguments that the diversity of life is due to special creation. Would it not be possible for the traditional God of mainstream western Chistianity to set in motion natural processes which would give rise to these features.
2. I am curious as to why you think that life exhibits CSI. Could you explain how life is both Complex and Specified in Dembski's sense?
How can one decide if the diversity of life is "specified" in Dembski's sense rather than "fabricated"?
In what way is the complexity of life "detachable" in Demsbki's use of the word?
3. IC raises a interesting difficulty, as it largely appears to boil down to whether some natural structures are indeed irreducibly complex or, more importantly, plausibly so. For example, haemoglobin has been claimed as an irreducibly complex molecule which reveals design: on the other hand there claims of possible evolutionary pathways for the same molecule. Even in the technical literature this seems to boil down to plausibility.
As a non-specialist I have a simple approach to this. I may not be able to judge individual cases of irreducible complexity, but how much irreducible complexity would I expect to find in a created world? How many irreducibly complex structures would I anticipate. I am astonished by the paucity of examples of IC proposed by creationists - far fewer than I would find in even such a simple designed structure as an automobile. When even natural processes such as erosion can create simple IC structures such as stone arches (I had the great pleasure to see an ice arch form over a stream near my home a few years ago), surely a designed life should abound in IC structures? I don't claim this approach as a solution to claims of IC for individual cases: those nearly always require sepcialist knowledge I am not qualified to assess.
One final point, as you are raising an ID argument. Demsbki often uses the No Free Lunch theorems to hold a position that mutation and selection cannot deliver CSI and that where they appear to it is because CSI has been "smuggled in."
Would you take a position that
a: special creation directly produces the diversity of life (a creator made the world diverse)
or
b: a creator "smuggled in" CSI to the genetic process
or perhaps something else?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by John Paul, posted 03-10-2002 4:05 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Philip, posted 03-11-2002 1:42 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 5 of 7 (6520)
03-11-2002 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Mister Pamboli
03-10-2002 8:59 PM


Like-kinds only reproduce like-kinds (Aristotle and Martin Luther). 'Hopeful-monster-theories' (AKA 'Punctuated Equilibria', 'DNA'-mutated-enhancements, etc.) hold no empirical ground in today's devolving space-time continuum ... in or out of the fossil record.
Such (macro-)evolution ALWAYS fails on all levels: NEVER having valid mechanisms for precursors nor DNA-mutations of their 'primal' irreducible complexities. This logic pertains to stellar complexities, inorganic complexities, biochemical complexities, anthropological complexities, and all their sub-systems (assuming you trace their causative thread). So I am without excuse when I reject ID, even while it 'feels' good to feel evolved. Whenever you or I would reject ID against empirical(cause-effect) grounds we are liars against science (but true to our biases).
Which intelligent design (?) is the real question ? Jehovah, Christ, Allah, Satan, Alien, Idol, or some combination of these)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-10-2002 8:59 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-11-2002 2:14 AM Philip has not replied
 Message 7 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-11-2002 2:29 AM Philip has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 6 of 7 (6521)
03-11-2002 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Philip
03-11-2002 1:42 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
Like-kinds only reproduce like-kinds (Aristotle and Martin Luther). 'Hopeful-monster-theories' (AKA 'Punctuated Equilibria', 'DNA'-mutated-enhancements, etc.) hold no empirical ground in today's devolving space-time continuum ... in or out of the fossil record.
Philip, Would you be interested in bringing your arguement against PE to the "Topic: Punctuated Equilibria" string at:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=55&p=7 ?
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Philip, posted 03-11-2002 1:42 AM Philip has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 7 of 7 (6523)
03-11-2002 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Philip
03-11-2002 1:42 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
Like-kinds only reproduce like-kinds (Aristotle and Martin Luther). 'Hopeful-monster-theories' (AKA 'Punctuated Equilibria', 'DNA'-mutated-enhancements, etc.) hold no empirical ground in today's devolving space-time continuum ... in or out of the fossil record.
I'm afraid I don't understand this. For one thing I don't know what you mean by "holding empirical ground in today's devolving space-time continuum." Can you explain? Thanks.
I think I do understand the old Aristotelian and Thomist argument like-produces-like argument, but it has always puzzled me. It certainly doesn't come close to explaining how we can attribute the creation of physical, transient, finite and natural life to a non-physical, eternal, infinite and supernatural God. Surely nothing could be a better example of like creating unlike than God creating a worm?
quote:
Such (macro-)evolution ALWAYS fails on all levels: NEVER having valid mechanisms for precursors nor DNA-mutations of their 'primal' irreducible complexities. This logic pertains to stellar complexities, inorganic complexities, biochemical complexities, anthropological complexities, and all their sub-systems (assuming you trace their causative thread).
This is a very broad assertion without support. Can you elaborate?
quote:
So I am without excuse when I reject ID, even while it 'feels' good to feel evolved. Whenever you or I would reject ID against empirical(cause-effect) grounds we are liars against science (but true to our biases).
Interesting. Do you have evidence of the biases in action? Presumably there also biases working in the opposite direction - the need to feel that we are somehow special, and to have purpose? [QUOTE]Which intelligent design (?) is the real question ? Jehovah, Christ, Allah, Satan, Alien, Idol, or some combination of these)[/B][/QUOTE]
Presumably, if you think like produces like it must be something very like ourselves - or at least something living in the sense we are living?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Philip, posted 03-11-2002 1:42 AM Philip has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024