Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ID as Religion
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 106 of 139 (142897)
09-17-2004 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by bob_gray
09-16-2004 9:59 PM


Re: Design filters are probably OT but.....
Yes this is Off Topic. thanks for the link, but discussion should proceed on that topic, or start a new one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by bob_gray, posted 09-16-2004 9:59 PM bob_gray has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 107 of 139 (143075)
09-18-2004 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by ID man
09-14-2004 9:57 AM


IDman: Definition ofSupernatural" in original message ...
Do you or do you not agree with this definition:
Supernatural adj. (Dictionary.com definition):
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
And let's see if you can answer a straight question on the topic without going off on a tangent, eh?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by ID man, posted 09-14-2004 9:57 AM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by ID man, posted 09-25-2004 5:32 PM RAZD has replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 139 (144702)
09-25-2004 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by RAZD
09-18-2004 12:34 PM


the court's ruling shows ID is NOT a religion
The court’s 3-part test to define religion:
First, a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. Second, a religion is comprehensive in nature: it consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching. Third, a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs.
Part 1:
a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters
Fact 1:
ID does not attempt to address fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. ID attempts to address the same question Darwin tried to and biologists still do: How did biological organisms acquire their appearance of design? Even though IDists attribute the design to a designing intelligence, ID says nothing of the designer. Yes ID could be used as/ to support one’s religious beliefs, but it could also stimulate theological questions in agnostic and even atheistic people. In concurring with Edwards v. Aguillard, Justice Lewis Powell wrote, [A] decision respecting the subject matter to be taught in public schools does not violate the Establishment Clause simply because the material to be taught ‘happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions’.
Part 2:
a religion is comprehensive in nature: it consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching
Fact 2:
ID says nothing of morality, metaphysics or an afterlife. Code of conduct or a belief in divine revelation is not required. ID won’t help IDists find any underlying meaning of the universe. ID is simply a theory on the source of the appearance of design and extends beyond biology. In biology ID merely tries to apply well-established scientific method to the analysis of what we observe, i.e. IC in biological organisms. Clearly ID is an isolated teaching.
Part 3:
a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs
Fact 3:
ID is not beholden to any religious texts. Its adherents come from varying religious backgrounds. (Denton is an agnostic) There aren’t any ID ceremonies. ID offers nothing to worship. ID says nothing about worship, how, why, what, where. There aren’t any ID holidays. There isn’t an ID priest or rabbi.
The above facts are based on the knowledge of what ID is. Now if RAZD has any evidence that contradicts those facts I will gladly give them a look.
On the supernatural: ID says nothing of the supernatural. ID does say that if the evidence leads us to the metaphysical then so be it. Why are people afraid of that? Objective science lets the evidence lead. Therefore I can conclude that people like RAZD are afraid of objective science.

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by RAZD, posted 09-18-2004 12:34 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Silent H, posted 09-26-2004 6:35 AM ID man has replied
 Message 135 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2004 1:16 PM ID man has not replied
 Message 136 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2004 9:11 AM ID man has not replied
 Message 137 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2004 6:32 PM ID man has replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 139 (144706)
09-25-2004 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by MrHambre
09-14-2004 12:14 PM


Re: Religious Questions
quote:
MrHambre:
We don’t require a supernatural designing entity to explain such former mysteries as the seasons, heredity, earthquakes, diseases, rainbows, tides, magnetism, mountains, catastrophic weather, solar and lunar eclipses, identical twins, and so forth.
When did rational people use the supernatural to explain any of the above?
quote:
MrHambre:
It’s certainly a believer’s prerogative to ascribe any of these to the will of a supernatural being, but the burden of proof would be on him if he expects us to share his suspicion that nature acting alone is inadequate to account for any scientific phenomenon.
Nature acting alone didn't bring my computer into being. Nature acting alone didn't build the cities archeologists study.
OK MrHambre please show us the evidence that nature, acting alone, brought forth life from non-life. Right now all we do know is that life only comes from life. YOU are going against our knowledge. That means you have to provide evidence for your faith. I understand that you can't do that. I also understand the many failings of materialistic naturalism. It's not your fault. It is time to admit it is all just a belief system.

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by MrHambre, posted 09-14-2004 12:14 PM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by crashfrog, posted 09-25-2004 6:18 PM ID man has replied
 Message 113 by Silent H, posted 09-26-2004 6:50 AM ID man has replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 139 (144711)
09-25-2004 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Loudmouth
09-14-2004 1:07 PM


Re: ID does not require faith
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Behe isn't an ID Creationist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
LM:
So he believes that nature alone can create life?
I don't know.
quote:
LM:
Or does he think that God was responsible? Which do you think it is?
I don't know and it is of no concern of ID.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know of any ID Creationists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
LM:
Look in the mirror.
I am not an ID Creationist. Not by any rational definition anyway.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is your positive evidence that nature acting alone did all this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
LM:
Sitting out there waiting to be tested through the scientific method. Every year we come closer to the answer, why stop now?
At least you have faith in your faith. BTW we aren't getting closer. The more we know the more we realize nature didn't do it acting alone. And where did nature come from?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did nature come from?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
LM:
For science, it doesn't matter.
You keep saying that as if it were true.
quote:
LM:
All that matters is that nature is testable through emperical data.
Nature may be, but the theory of evolution is not. What is the empirical data that shows procaryotes evolved into eucaryotes? How about the data on the evolution of metazoans?

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Loudmouth, posted 09-14-2004 1:07 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by nator, posted 09-26-2004 8:21 AM ID man has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 111 of 139 (144725)
09-25-2004 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by ID man
09-25-2004 5:39 PM


Nature acting alone didn't bring my computer into being.
You don't believe that your computer was constructed according to the laws of physics?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by ID man, posted 09-25-2004 5:39 PM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by ID man, posted 09-26-2004 11:20 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 112 of 139 (144796)
09-26-2004 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by ID man
09-25-2004 5:32 PM


I don't understand your fixation with the court's 3 point test for religion.
1) Tests can change with time. If the courts feel a religious message is getting through in spite of the criteria they can judge the criteria incomplete and devise new ones.
2) There is a definitional difference between teaching "a religion" and teaching "a pseudo-scientific program designed to support religion", but both would be problematic. As the ID movement creates a new niche for pushing religion into school (or good science out), it may be found to be invalid whether it is "a religion" or "supporting religion".
ID does not attempt to address fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. ID attempts to address the same question Darwin tried to and biologists still do: How did biological organisms acquire their appearance of design?
In another thread you said they were asking how did we get here. In this thread you not only have changed the purpose but also altered that of evolution. What does evolution have to do with asking about the "appearance of design"?
The matter pertaining to evolution was the general mechanism responsible for species DIVERSITY.
And I will point out once again, you have missed the actual question of pure ID theory. The question is how do we indentify (what are testable criteria for detecting) design in biological and nonbiological organisms?
If it is asking how did biological entities acquire the appearance of design, it is already waking away from science.
Yes ID could be used as/ to support one’s religious beliefs, but it could also stimulate theological questions in agnostic and even atheistic people.
This supports my point. So you are saying that evidence of design would inherently suggest the supernatural? Why would it not simply suggest design by some other material beings, or non supernatural anyway, designing specific parts?
Assumptions and agendas are clearly frontloaded into IDIOT theory, more than they are into biological organisms.
[A] decision respecting the subject matter to be taught in public schools does not violate the Establishment Clause simply because the material to be taught ‘happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions’.
This is true. However when they are designed not just to coincide with a religion, but attack alternative theories with much greater weight, because the alternative theories are thought not to coincide with religion... that is something else altogether.
ID says nothing of morality, metaphysics or an afterlife. Code of conduct or a belief in divine revelation is not required. ID won’t help IDists find any underlying meaning of the universe. ID is simply a theory on the source of the appearance of design and extends beyond biology.
I want you to explain what the Discovery Institute is, what the writings on its website (discovery.org) are about, and why one should believe the above when ID leaders repeatedly claim that evolutionary theory and materialism is leading to moral problems in society which ID will repair.
That is also part of congressional records when they took part in a hearing on ID.
On the supernatural: ID says nothing of the supernatural. ID does say that if the evidence leads us to the metaphysical then so be it. Why are people afraid of that? Objective science lets the evidence lead.
Yes, ID doesn't. But IDIOT theory does. When one gets into "inference" as the main criteria one is not letting evidence lead. When one is talking about teleogy past the specific designed part, one is inviting the supernatural.
I love how IDIOTs keep shrugging their shoulders and saying "if the evidence leads to the metaphysical so be it", when their entire stated point is that evolutionary theory has led to some possible metaphysical interpretations they don't like which is why they invented ID.
If this were true then there would be no discussion of religion at all. You have still avoided addressing Dembski's book on the link between ID and Xian theology. He is one of the biggest ID leaders, and that was a book ABOUT ID theory.
Personally I don't have a reason to dismiss the supernatural nor support wholly materialist world views. I do however have a stake in good science. If ID stuck to pure ID there'd be no problems.
My question is why are IDIOT theorists STATING that they are afraid of the metaphysical implications of evolution, so much that they are willing to start a pseudo-science, and then act as if they don't care about metaphysical implications just to get it into schools?
{edited in...}
Missed one.
In biology ID merely tries to apply well-established scientific method to the analysis of what we observe, i.e. IC in biological organisms. Clearly ID is an isolated teaching.
Could you explain how the concept of IC is part of well-established scientific method?
ID is an isolated teaching... I mean it would have to be because it hasn't even proved itself to science yet. Who is teaching something that is not even a complete working model (even Behe and Dembski and Ratzsch say this)?
Oh yeah, isolated to Judeo-Xian homeschoolers and Judeo-Xian science teachers.
This message has been edited by holmes, 09-26-2004 05:39 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by ID man, posted 09-25-2004 5:32 PM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by ID man, posted 09-26-2004 11:41 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 113 of 139 (144797)
09-26-2004 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by ID man
09-25-2004 5:39 PM


Nature acting alone didn't bring my computer into being. Nature acting alone didn't build the cities archeologists study.
None of those are living organisms. So we see living organisms creating complex nonliving organisms. Your point?
OK MrHambre please show us the evidence that nature, acting alone, brought forth life from non-life. Right now all we do know is that life only comes from life. YOU are going against our knowledge.
Hahahahahahaha. You realize this contradicts itself right?
You are correct in saying only life comes from life, but only from sexual or asexual reproduction. Have you evidence of anything created? And no, one not completely explained flagellum does not count. At BEST that says that one feature may have been programmed in for some temporal purpose. It does not begin to suggest the entire organism (life) was programmed.
In addition we do know about things like viruses and prions that straddle "life" and could be precursors. We simply don't have the requisite knowledge about complex or selfduplicating chemical systems to make statements about what COULD NOT be.
I also understand the many failings of materialistic naturalism. It's not your fault. It is time to admit it is all just a belief system.
This is completely against what Ratzsch wrote. You have said that you agree with Ratzsch. Do you or don't you?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by ID man, posted 09-25-2004 5:39 PM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by ID man, posted 09-26-2004 12:11 PM Silent H has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 114 of 139 (144802)
09-26-2004 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by ID man
09-25-2004 5:47 PM


Re: ID does not require faith
A reply to message #99 in this thread would be appreciated.
I understand that you are dealing with several debate partners, so there is no rush.
However, if you are going to take more than a couple of days to reply, please indicate as such.
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by ID man, posted 09-25-2004 5:47 PM ID man has not replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 139 (144820)
09-26-2004 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by crashfrog
09-25-2004 6:18 PM


Nature acting alone didn't bring my computer into being.
quote:
crashfrog:
You don't believe that your computer was constructed according to the laws of physics?
Where did the laws of physics come from? However my computer being constructed according to the laws of physics (if that is the case) does NOT equal nature acting alone bringing my computer into being. Even elementary school kids know the difference.

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by crashfrog, posted 09-25-2004 6:18 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by crashfrog, posted 09-26-2004 11:26 AM ID man has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 116 of 139 (144821)
09-26-2004 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by ID man
09-26-2004 11:20 AM


Where did the laws of physics come from?
That's "nature". The laws of physics govern natural phenomenon.
If you don't believe that nature governed the creation of your computer, then you believe your computer was created in violation of the laws of physics.
However my computer being constructed according to the laws of physics (if that is the case) does NOT equal nature acting alone bringing my computer into being.
If nature isn't the laws of physics, then what is nature?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by ID man, posted 09-26-2004 11:20 AM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by ID man, posted 09-26-2004 11:45 AM crashfrog has replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 139 (144823)
09-26-2004 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Silent H
09-26-2004 6:35 AM


quote:
holmes:
I don't understand your fixation with the court's 3 point test for religion.
In the absence of reason one must go with the authority. Seeing there isn't any reasoning with evolutionists the court ruling stands as testimony to their moving the goalposts.
quote:
holmes:
1) Tests can change with time. If the courts feel a religious message is getting through in spite of the criteria they can judge the criteria incomplete and devise new ones.
Not according to the judge I quoted.
In concurring with Edwards v. Aguillard, Justice Lewis Powell wrote, [A] decision respecting the subject matter to be taught in public schools does not violate the Establishment Clause simply because the material to be taught ‘happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions’.
quote:
holmes:
2) There is a definitional difference between teaching "a religion" and teaching "a pseudo-scientific program designed to support religion", but both would be problematic. As the ID movement creates a new niche for pushing religion into school (or good science out), it may be found to be invalid whether it is "a religion" or "supporting religion".
What is psdeudo-science? Especially in light of this:
As a result of such contradictions, most contemporary philosophers of science have come to regard the question What distinguishes science from nonscience? as both intractable and uninteresting. Instead, philosophers of science have increasingly realized that the real issue is not whether a theory is scientific according to some abstract definition but whether a theory is true- that is, based on evidence. As Laudan explains, If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like ‘pseudo-science’theydo only emotive work for us. As Martin Eger summarized,[d]emarcation arguments have collapsed. Philosophers of science don’t hold them anymore. They may still enjoy acceptance in the popular world, but that is a different world." pg. 77 of "Darwinism, Design and Public Education
ID does not push religion into schools. ID is science so it isn't pushing science out either.
ID does not attempt to address fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. ID attempts to address the same question Darwin tried to and biologists still do: How did biological organisms acquire their appearance of design?
quote:
holmes:
In another thread you said they were asking how did we get here.
Your confusion is that what ID does is separate from what IDists do. You keep confusing the two. Just because IDists ponder such questions that has no bearing on ID. Does Dawkins' atheism have a bearing on the theory of evolution? Is that theory an atheistic theory?
quote:
holmes:
In this thread you not only have changed the purpose but also altered that of evolution. What does evolution have to do with asking about the "appearance of design"?
Ask Dawkins. He said the appearance of design was illusory. Even Crick commented that we must always keep in mind that what we are observing was not designed rather it evolved. (paraphrasing) IOW the appearance of design is obvious.
quote:
holmes:
If it is asking how did biological entities acquire the appearance of design, it is already waking away from science.
That is nothing but an unsupported assertion. You can say it all you want but it is still meaningless.
Yes ID could be used as/ to support one’s religious beliefs, but it could also stimulate theological questions in agnostic and even atheistic people.
quote:
holmes:
This supports my point. So you are saying that evidence of design would inherently suggest the supernatural? Why would it not simply suggest design by some other material beings, or non supernatural anyway, designing specific parts?
IDists have already posited that aliens could be the designers of life on Earth. This supports my premise that you don't understand ID.
[A] decision respecting the subject matter to be taught in public schools does not violate the Establishment Clause simply because the material to be taught ‘happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions’.
quote:
holmes:
This is true. However when they are designed not just to coincide with a religion, but attack alternative theories with much greater weight, because the alternative theories are thought not to coincide with religion... that is something else altogether.
It is only an opinion that the theory of evolution has greater weight than ID. Why is it that the vast majority of people in the USA are Creationists, IDists or theistic evolutionists? If the theory of evolution has such great weight then how do you explain biologists, genetists and other scientists saying the weight isn't so great and questioning its validity?
as for IDIOTs, you fit that to a tee.

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Silent H, posted 09-26-2004 6:35 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Silent H, posted 09-26-2004 3:49 PM ID man has not replied
 Message 133 by crashfrog, posted 09-26-2004 3:55 PM ID man has not replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 139 (144824)
09-26-2004 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by crashfrog
09-26-2004 11:26 AM


Where did the laws of physics come from?
quote:
crashfrog:
That's "nature".
That doesn't answer the question. Where did "nature" come from?
quote:
crashfrog:
The laws of physics govern natural phenomenon.
Can you suport that claim?
quote:
crashfrog:
If you don't believe that nature governed the creation of your computer, then you believe your computer was created in violation of the laws of physics.
Nature acting alone did not create my computer. Period, end of story. You can twist that fact all you want but it doesn't change the fact.

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by crashfrog, posted 09-26-2004 11:26 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 09-26-2004 12:05 PM ID man has replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 139 (144825)
09-26-2004 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by nator
09-15-2004 10:08 AM


Re: ID is not a religion- here is why
We knew that the cause of Stonehenge was people.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do we know that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
shrafinator:
We inferred it from our knowledge of people making things out of stone, including religious structures.
Haven't I already said this?
That doesn't mean that people made Stonehenge. We can use the same logic with genetic engineering as our backdrop with respect to biological organisms.
There's only one Stonehenge, but given that we know that humans have, for millennia, built massive and elaborate structures, it is a reasonable assumption that humans built this one, too. There are also buried human remains close by and burial mounds, etc.
But how did the humans acquire the knowledge to do this? Maybe aliens designed and built Stonehenge and then humans came along and thought it was something to be worshipped.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And what kind of expalnation is "nature did it"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
schrafinator:
Because, so far, that has been the only answer we have ever gotten when inquiry is allowed to progress.
Tell that to forensics and archeologists.
quote:
scrafinator:
That is where all of our positive evidence has ever led us.
OK what is the positive evidence from life arising from non-life by nature acting alone? What is the postive evidence that by nature acting alone metazoans can arise on a planet that didn't have metazoans?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why go against what we do know to posit something else?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
scrafinator:
But we don't actually know if an Intelligent Designer did anything.
No but according to you we can infer it from the evidence. That is what we did with Stonehenge.
quote:
scrafinator:
We only have gaps in our understanding, into which you inexplicably insert a Designer.
I insert a designer because I see the evidence for one.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By your logic when an archeologist comes upon an inscription in the wall he should assume it was put there by nature acting alone. We don't want him to commit a "scribe-of-gaps" fallacy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
schrafinator:
What?
Archaeologists don't study natural events, they study human cultures through their artifacts.
But how do they know what is a natural event and what is an artifact? That is the point.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do not need to know who designed my car to know it was
designed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
schrafinator:
That's right. That is because we know, through voluminous positive evidence, that humans design cars.
Just because human design cars now does not mean they always did. Humans make paper now, but if it wasn't for the observance of wasps we may not have been doing so. Or at least it would have taken us longer to figure it out.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK the evidence is the bacterial flagellum exhibits irreducible complexity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
scrafinator:
So does a stone arch.
Please explain.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a multi-part system that functions because of the parts that make it up. We can be assured of its design as we can with any other multi-part system that a;so exhibits IC- getting seperate components together in such a way to achieve a function that depends on the components.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
schrafinator:
How do you know that these IC systems cannot evolve naturally?
Never say never. However there isn't any evidence that shows it could or did. The evidence points to a designer. We have knowledge of designers designing IC. To falsify ID just show how the BF arose from nature acting alone. Period, end of story.
Science works from our current level of understanding. Science does not work by waiting what may or may not come in the future.

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by nator, posted 09-15-2004 10:08 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by nator, posted 09-26-2004 1:55 PM ID man has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 120 of 139 (144826)
09-26-2004 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by ID man
09-26-2004 11:45 AM


That doesn't answer the question. Where did "nature" come from?
Since when was that the question? We're discussing computers and their construction, not the origin of nature.
Nature is that which proceeds according to physical law, by definition. If you don't believe that your computer was contructed naturally, you believe it was constructed supernaturally, that is, contrary to the laws of physics.
Can you suport that claim?
By definition, it is true. Nature is that which is governed by the laws of physics.
Nature acting alone did not create my computer.
You believe that your computer was not constructed according to the laws of physics? You believe that your computer was constructed supernaturally? How can that possibly be the case, and why would any reasonable person believe you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by ID man, posted 09-26-2004 11:45 AM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by ID man, posted 09-26-2004 12:18 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024