Intelligent Design is NOT Creation[ism]

ID man,Just what are you claiming was designed by your intelligent agent?1) The bacterial flagellum2) The first living organisms on Earth3) The first prokaryotes4) The laws of physics themselves5) All of the above and everything elseJust so we can work our way forward here.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

jar:
Well here is one Christian Evolutionist that will tell you that there is no indication that humans were the intent of GOD. To believe that humans were a goal makes GOD out to be a very illogical and insecure critter.

---

I seriously doubt your alleged christianity. Why would you worship a liar and deciever? That is what the christian God would be if the theory of evolution equaled reality. Jesus spoke of the flood as a real event. He spoke of Adam & Eve as real people.

quote:

---

jar:
If humans were the goal, why would GOD have created a universe that took 14+ billion years to get to something that could have been there at day one.

---

Read Dr. Humphreys for that answer. Even The Bible doesn't say only one day.

quote:

---

jar:
It assumes that all life that came before humans was simply wasted effort and non-productive nonsense.

---

Not at all. The other organisms provide humans with something to observe, study and learn by. Also they provide food, and some change CO2 to O2.

quote:

---

jar:
The idea that there is something unusal or even exceptional about humans is a very human centric idea.

---

Reality says we are exceptional. Do you see other organisms doing what we do with technology?

---

"...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"

What evidence? Again you speak of evidence as if it was readily apparent without any given to show that it is. Your standard of evidence must be quite different from the normal, scientific standard. The opinion that the sun goes around the earth was based on the observation that it rose in the east, traversed the sky and set in the west, and that this held no matter where on earth you were situated. The evidence obtained when you remove the observer from the system is that the earth goes around the sun and spins while it is doing so, thus causing the appearance of sun motion. Evidence is impartial, opinion is not. So far I have yet to see a single iota of evidence that says here there be design in such a manner that is impartial and devoid of opinion to be evidence and not interpretation of evidence. OPINIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE. Irrelevant. The other two genes were not used by the new system, and all three parts evolved to make the new system work, and yet the loss of any one of them renders the system inoperable: The result is an IC system that evolved. That is the evidence. Which logical fallacy is that? Perhaps you can list it from the pages I keep sending you to with no avail? Spend some time (and effort?) and enlighten me: Forbidden.Sorry, but the scientific approach says otherwise:theory: IC systems cannot evolve on their own
invalidation test: evolve an IC system
evaluation: IC has failed
result: discard IC and move on to another theory.Let me put it this way and see if you understand:

• IF an IC system can be either (a) evolved or (b) designed, and
• IF it is not possible to determine whether the system is either (a) evolved or (b) designed,
• THEN the existence of any IC system cannot determine whether (a) evolution or (b) design occurred, and (furthermore)
• THUS it is not possible to say positively and irrefutably that design has occurred in the making of the IC system, and
• THEREFORE IC cannot be used as any evidence of any design.

Again: this is a logical construction that must be true if the precepts are true. For someone who claims to use logic and rational evaluation of the evidence it seems that you do not understand when logic and rational evaluation refute a position. What you posted was from a book. I saw no reference to any actual court case or citation of the court opinion. Until you have that evidence I will stand on this just being opinion — but HEY here is your first real chance to provide real evidence for your position (NOT that it will make it any more TRUE). Thanks for another ad hominem bit of slander that doesn’t address the issue of the coincidence being a coincidence, and that without it being so that another one would replace it, of equal incredulity. In point of fact there is a stage of a total eclipse known as Baily’s Beads and if the moon were just a smidgeon smaller these would be visible around the whole moon and make a truly spectacular sight, much more impressive than just the corona.Eclipse - Bailey's Beads Your standard of evidence is also duly noted.EnjoyThis message has been edited by Admin, 09-27-2004 12:08 PM

---

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

(Goddamn that's a funny mental image. )I had noticed that too. I figured if we let him race his goalposts all over the place, eventually he'll drive himself right over a cliff. Looks like he's already done so.

In HTML abd UBB, "grey" is spelled "gray".

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

crashfrog:
Irrelevant, point not under discussion.

---

LoL!!! It is very relevant. The point is under discussion. You can't make your opponent back up to the beginning without being willing to do so yourself.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
But I'm glad you've made it clear that your only response, when challenged for positive evidence of your position, is to change the subject.

---

I didn't change the subject. I just turn the table on you. Don't ask for something you cannot provide.

---

"...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"

None that I've ever heard of, but I know what fallacy ID man is committing - circular reasoning.If an IC system is defined as one that can't evolve, then you can't point to a system, declare it to be IC, and then conclude that it couldn't have evolved.

You've confused my arguments with your strawmen. I never asked you to "back up to the beginning"; only to provide positive evidence that chloroplast gene expression mechanisms were designed, per your assertion that they were.You have not done so. Your only response has been to ignore the question and change the subject. Is this really the best you have, ID man? All I asked you for was positive evidence that the chloroplast gene expression mechanism was designed. I'm sure that I can't provide evidence that it was designed, but then, I never claimed it was designed.

Sod the goalposts, ID man started playing tiddlywinks long ago.Me, I'd just be satisfied if he admitted that while there is no positive evidence that a God...eer...Designer (damn it, I just keep on doing that ) was responsible for the existance of mitochondria and chloroplasts, and yet there is positive evidence for them being the result of an endosymbiotic event in the far past. This doesn't seem too much to ask, but like so many others (I suspect) I am not holding my breath!

interesting that both appear to work on my machine. I will correct my ways to use americanlish rather than the real english ()

I wasn't just being facetious, either. I mean, humans have done enough gene-splicing to make it possible (though not particularly plausible) that someone could have 'designed' the original replicator molecule. But let's be honest, saying the same 'external agent' was responsible for fashioning the physical properties of our universe is attributing far more profound capabilities to this entity than we can rationally excuse.regards,
Esteban Hambre

First, you are free to doubt my Christianity.Second, I do not worship the Bible, it is but a book written by men. However, the universe around us and the life that is shown by evolution is a record written by GOD directly.Third, neither I or any major Christian denomination have any problems with either the reality of Evolution or the TOE. That is why just about every major denomination has come out in support of teaching Evolution and the TOE and in opposition to creationism. I will be happy to provided evidence in support of this assertion.Finally, your post removes any doubt or question that you are, and ID is, simply creationism lite. Nice try but it simply supports my contention. Are you saying that the only reason for the existence of the dinosaurs, of the Cambrian and pre-cambrian lifeforms was to give humans something to study? Again, simply a human-centric assertion. Do you think a beaver would appreciate a highrise more than his den? Do you think a gorilla would be in awe of our preoccupation with reality tv? Do you think grass lives in fear of our mowers?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Do you think grass lives in fear of our mowers?
  —Jar

---

LOL!!(puts on grass voice)
Oh nooooooo, help us somebody please.....ARRGGGHHH!!!

ID man First off 250,000,000 years needs to be compared to the length of time that humans have held an intelligence.Taking a ballpark figure of 10,000 years since recorded history began{and with it any assurance of cognitve processes that could appreciate the actual meaning of a solar eclipse}this amounts to 0.0002% of the age of the earth. This is before taking into account how far into the past the "window of opportunity" extends.
It does not look that impressive as a coincidence goes eh?Anyway this also veers away from the rest of my original post which is as follows If you could reply to this part of my query I would appreciate it greatly.

---

"You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place."

What I has thought of as a very high quality topic seems to be on the skids.Will give 10 minutes for the in progress messages to get posted, and then I'm going to give this topic a "cooling off period" closing.Adminnemooseus

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests
or
Considerations of topic promotions from the Proposed New Topics forum