Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9078 total)
145 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, kjsimons, nwr, Percy (Admin) (5 members, 140 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,001 Year: 6,113/6,534 Month: 306/650 Week: 76/278 Day: 24/52 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Argument from Design: Design for who?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17178
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 31 of 39 (146103)
09-30-2004 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by ID man
09-30-2004 1:22 PM


Accidental double post
n/a

This message has been edited by PaulK, 09-30-2004 12:51 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 1:22 PM ID man has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17178
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 32 of 39 (146106)
09-30-2004 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by ID man
09-30-2004 1:29 PM


Yawn. Yet another example of your compulsive need to falsely accuse opponents of double-standards. I advise you to seek psychiatric help.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 1:29 PM ID man has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5131 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 33 of 39 (146113)
09-30-2004 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ID man
09-30-2004 1:27 PM


Evolutionists tell us that metazoans evolved from some non-metazoan population. They can't substantiate that claim with evidence. They also make other claim s that cannot and have not been substantuated

This criticism, even if true, is not the same thing as what PaulK was talking about. SC is defined by a mathematical approach. IC is claimed to be a form of SC. Where is the mathematical application which connects the two?

This is so simple an issue I am unsure why you are attempting to duck it in this fashion.

As far as the above is concerned, the nature of positive evidence has been brought to your attention by me and you left it unaddressed.

You can pretend you haven't seen the above argument shot down, but that does not make it so.

Then when told that evidence for a designer is in the design, ie the structures we see under the microscope, they say that isn't enough.

Of course simply saying "it's in the design" isn't enough. You must come up with criteria to detect design. That is after all what ID theorists are claiming to have done.

By the way one of the structures you have noted... blood clotting cascades... have already been disproven as necessarily IC. I believe even Behe has admitted that that example is no longer correct. You might want to chuck it in your list of proofs.

that species can diversify does not explain how that species came about in the first place.

That is correct. The best current model involves alterations over numerous reproductive cycles (in eukaryotes) and some within current generations (for prokaryotes).

This model is developed from observed changes through reproductive cycles (in euks and proks), within a generation (in proks), and to some extent inferred through organizations of proks.

How the first prok came about is not known and remains highly theoretical. The best model is precursor material forming in environments (most likely marine) against catalytic surface materials (chiral clays).

There are no claims that these have been PROVEN. These are simply the best theoretical models given current knowledge.

Are you ready to share the ID model yet?

the theory of BS starts out with the complexity that needs explaining.

What is the theory of BS? And what complexity (please define, mathematically of course) needs to be explained?


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 27 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 1:27 PM ID man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 3:12 PM Silent H has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17178
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 34 of 39 (146150)
09-30-2004 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Silent H
09-30-2004 2:07 PM


The reason for the false accusations is that admitting the truth would show how the ID movement is a scientific failure. Just as we saw the same hostility when I pointed out that ID needs to make hypotheses about the designer to get to the stage of having a theory that could replace evolution.

It seems to be a general trend in the ID movement. When the Panda's Thumb published a critique of Meyer's recent article there was a lot of howling about "censorship" - quite unjustified - but no real answer to the criticism of the contents, indeed the vast majority of the article was almost completely ignored.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 2:07 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 4:19 PM PaulK has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5131 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 35 of 39 (146163)
09-30-2004 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by PaulK
09-30-2004 3:12 PM


I pointed out that ID needs to make hypotheses about the designer to get to the stage of having a theory that could replace evolution.

I would debate this, but I won't here.


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 34 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 3:12 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 4:26 PM Silent H has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 705 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 36 of 39 (146166)
09-30-2004 4:24 PM


ID man is John Paul
I had my suspicions before, but now I know. I'm probably not the only one who noticed the similarities in the style of debate: the bad logic, the denials that nature alone can accomplish anything, the scorn heaped on naturalistic science, the insistence that we back up any claim while he offers only quotes from Discovery Institute fellows, etc, etc. I've wasted too much time on this bullshit artist.

In this post note how ID man quotes PaulK with a little tag so we know who's speaking.

quote:
PaulK:
Therefore we have now established that your claim of "double standards" was indeed a lie.

Your refusal to look at the work I cited is typical of willful ignorance.

Compare John Paul quoting himself (again we're given a helpful tag) and making the delicate suggestion that his opponent may benefit from further research into the admittedly extensive ID literature...

John Paul:
You obviously have no clue what ID is. Ignorance is one thing. Wilfull ignorance is a shame. ID does NOT go against common descent. But you would know that if you had a clue.

Here ID man quotes Behe:

Our apprehension of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles as our apprehension of the jungle trap; the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.” Mike Behe

Lo and behold, in this post we get virtually the same quote from John Paul:

As Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin’s Black Box: ”Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

And here's ID man getting all colloquial:

Ya see this is all part of the double-standards I am talking about.

That's so reminiscent of this gem from John Paul, wherein he gives us a Stonehenge presentation no less ridiculous than Spinal Tap's:

Ya see holmes, I have never seen anyone build or design Stonehenge yet I can say with conviction that it is the product of design.

Coincidence? Go figure.

regards,
Esteban Hambre


  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17178
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 37 of 39 (146167)
09-30-2004 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Silent H
09-30-2004 4:19 PM


For the purposes of my comment here it doesn't matter if I am right or wrong. The important point is that ID Man couldn't answer it, and instead tried to pretend that evolutionary theory didn't exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 4:19 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 5:23 PM PaulK has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 38 of 39 (146192)
09-30-2004 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by ID man
09-30-2004 1:22 PM


All parties need to cool it a bit.
I suggest that there are a few too many opportunities taken to be impolite.

You, IDMan seem to be the worst of them.

It should be reduced from now on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 1:22 PM ID man has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5131 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 39 of 39 (146198)
09-30-2004 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by PaulK
09-30-2004 4:26 PM


You are right. That's why I wouldn't debate the point here.


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 37 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 4:26 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022