Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who designed the ID designer(s)?
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 31 of 396 (138193)
08-30-2004 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by RAZD
08-30-2004 2:47 PM


Re: lets get back to the topic
I must have gotten confused with the other thread where one of your arguments was that since ID is a subset of Deism it must also be a faith/religion. That argument wasn't in the OT for this thread.
Back on topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 2:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 7:17 PM bob_gray has not replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6872 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 32 of 396 (138208)
08-30-2004 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by RAZD
08-30-2004 2:10 PM


Re: A form of logic and reason - or just more shinola?
could you 'warnded' me again (LOL)
unless there is another meaning of the word 'design' that I don't know of, it verily implies someone/something had a hand in it.
I mean I could be wrong. I've seen things that I'd gladly accept as accidentally designing themselves where no designer should come forward on penalty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 2:10 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 7:19 PM PecosGeorge has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 33 of 396 (138237)
08-30-2004 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by bob_gray
08-30-2004 4:56 PM


Re: lets get back to the topic
yes, that was ID man bringing in arguments from other posts. he's done it several times now, and still has not addressed the OT.
places that argument occurs are
is ID properly pursued http://EvC Forum: Is ID properly pursued? -->EvC Forum: Is ID properly pursued?
and
the I in ID http://EvC Forum: The I in ID -->EvC Forum: The I in ID
thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by bob_gray, posted 08-30-2004 4:56 PM bob_gray has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 34 of 396 (138238)
08-30-2004 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by PecosGeorge
08-30-2004 5:44 PM


Re: A form of logic and reason - or just more shinola?
the problem is discerning alien design (cause it ain't us babe) and apparent design (the pattern seen in a kaleidoscope)

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 32 by PecosGeorge, posted 08-30-2004 5:44 PM PecosGeorge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by PecosGeorge, posted 08-30-2004 8:55 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 35 of 396 (138242)
08-30-2004 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Loudmouth
08-30-2004 3:21 PM


Re: lets get back to the topic
Yes-
I have a bit of a problem here.
It is clear TO ME AT LEAST, perhaps because I studied a little bit with Will Provine that HE IS refering PM Shepard's claim on any selective limits but that due to special creation refering to Phillip Johnson's "views". Now Phil J. is an IDer unlike me and yet I see reasons that Shepard misunderstood the relation of attribute to continuous data dialectically. It is all very dark indeed. This was the problem of the "older generation" of e/c thinkers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Loudmouth, posted 08-30-2004 3:21 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6872 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 36 of 396 (138267)
08-30-2004 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by RAZD
08-30-2004 7:19 PM


Re: A form of logic and reason - or just more shinola?
Why is buddha laughing with joy, babe?
You are being cryptic, which is your expertise. I wouldn't have it any other way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 7:19 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 37 of 396 (138321)
08-30-2004 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ID man
08-30-2004 12:54 PM


bump for ID man to continue ...
ID man
Just to let you know. I expect you are busy elsewhere and I don't want this to get lost. I am waiting for you to respond to posts #19 and 23
http://EvC Forum: Who designed the ID designer(s)?
http://EvC Forum: Who designed the ID designer(s)?
Please do not bring in any more material from other topics and address the issues of these posts or start again with the OT to attempt to show that ID is not a form of faith.
So far you have not been successful in establishing your claim in this regard, and while you like to pretend that it is just "playing silly (RAZD) word games" the fact is that the logic is real and valid. Ignoring it will not make it go away or change the reality of the truth of the syllogistic construction.
Alternatively you can accept this truth, and we can move on to other exciting aspects of ID and the search for "life, the universe, and everything." Call this my pre-emptive strike if you will but, in accordance with evo protocol 42, if you fail to respond further this will be taken as evidence that the conclusion of the OT remains valid and that:
it has been shown that ID is a form of faith.
and thank you for playing.
I will be waiting.
6O
Enjoy.

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 14 by ID man, posted 08-30-2004 12:54 PM ID man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by AdminNosy, posted 08-30-2004 11:49 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 38 of 396 (138326)
08-30-2004 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by RAZD
08-30-2004 11:32 PM


Time for a review
RAZD, you keep asserting that ID as a faith has not been refuted.
For the last number of posts this seems to me to be more assertion than anything. I think you would do well to summarize the points made. If you can do that I'll start to push a lot harder on both sides. (I'm just too lazy to go over the whole darn thread).
(added by edit)
Actually, I've started to review the thread. ID Man, I haven't been able to find your evidence that ID is supposed to be based on. Perhaps you can have a go at your own summary of the discussion so far.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 08-30-2004 11:17 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 11:32 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 08-31-2004 1:08 AM AdminNosy has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 39 of 396 (138335)
08-31-2004 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by AdminNosy
08-30-2004 11:49 PM


Re: Time for a review - no problem.
They are all laid out in the OT
EvC Forum: Who designed the ID designer(s)?
None of the following posts have challenged the OT, hence the appearance of later assertions restating the final conclusion of the OT.
This is a logical construction and not a matter of opinion. As such it can only be invalidated on the basis of a logical review of the elements of the OT.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 08-31-2004 12:09 AM

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 38 by AdminNosy, posted 08-30-2004 11:49 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by AdminNosy, posted 08-31-2004 1:48 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 40 of 396 (138341)
08-31-2004 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by RAZD
08-31-2004 1:08 AM


Re: Time for a review - no problem.
So far I agree, RAZD, I can't find the rebuttal.
ID Man, it is your turn. You can summarize the rebuttal here and point to the posts with more of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 08-31-2004 1:08 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 08-31-2004 12:29 PM AdminNosy has not replied
 Message 42 by ID man, posted 09-09-2004 1:56 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 41 of 396 (138468)
08-31-2004 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by AdminNosy
08-31-2004 1:48 AM


Still waiting for ID man ...
So, again we are waiting for ID man ...
http://EvC Forum: Who designed the ID designer(s)?
6O
Thanks.

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 40 by AdminNosy, posted 08-31-2004 1:48 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 396 (141240)
09-09-2004 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by AdminNosy
08-31-2004 1:48 AM


Re: Time for a review - no problem.
ID is based on evidence, observation, logic and reason:
Here I would like to give a simple, intuitive criterion for suspecting design in discrete physical systems. In these cases design is most easily apprehended when a number of separate, interacting components are ordered in such a way as to accomplish a function beyond the individual components.
(indicates a narrative on snare trap in the jungle)
I argue that many biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent. 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
Peer-reviewed journals aren’t comparing what is observed inside the cell to machines, the articles make it clear it is molecular machines and motors we are observing under the magnifying glass. Howard Berg of Harvard has called the bac flag the most efficient machine in the universe. Living cells are factories in miniature. And you’re telling me that I can’t infer ID from the evidence? The writings of Walter Bradley, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards, along with the conclusions of Louis Pasteur, Sir Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilee, Aristotle et al., make it clear that the positive evidence for ID extend beyond biology, is based on observation and is definitely a valid scientific endeavor.
A healthy science is a science that seeks the truth. Paul Nelson, Ph. D., philosophy of biology.
ID: pg. 92
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of past intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanation for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
There’s a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years, the Moon will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5% of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view or solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them. Page 18 paragraph 4; The Privileged Planet: How our place in the cosmos is designed for discovery by G. Gonzalez Ph. D. astronomy & J. Richards Ph. D. philosophy & theology.
The combined circumstance that we live on Earth and are able to see stars- that the conditions necessary for life do not exclude those necessary for vision, and vice versa- is a remarkably improbable one.
This is because the medium in which we live is, on the one hand, just thick enough to enable us to breathe and to prevent us from being burned up by cosmic rays, while, on the other hand, it is not so opaque as to absorb entirely the light of the stars and block any view of the universe. What a fragile balance between the indispensable and the sublime.
Hans Blumeberg
There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe The impression of design is overwhelming. Paul Davies
From there you can read the following books:
Nature, Design and Science by Del Ratzsch
Darwin's Black Box by Behe
The Privileged Planet by Gonzales and Richards
Signs of Intelligence by various authors
Darwinism, Design and Public Education by various authors
Once you have read those it will be clear that RAZD is full of something but not substance for his claims.

"...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 40 by AdminNosy, posted 08-31-2004 1:48 AM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2004 2:31 PM ID man has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 43 of 396 (141249)
09-09-2004 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by ID man
09-09-2004 1:56 PM


already addressed ... yawn
all of the positions in this post are addressed in other posts that have not been adequately answered by ID man, except possibly by the innuendo of insults that seem to be the only ammunition he has left.

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 42 by ID man, posted 09-09-2004 1:56 PM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by ID man, posted 09-09-2004 2:41 PM RAZD has replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 396 (141255)
09-09-2004 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by RAZD
09-09-2004 2:31 PM


Re: already addressed ... yawn- ditto
All of RAZD's positions have been more than adequately answered in my posts and ID literaure. IOW RAZD doesn't have any ammunition. If he did he would have taken it to the ISCID.
BTW addressing something is not the same as refuting it.

"...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 43 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2004 2:31 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2004 3:13 PM ID man has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 45 of 396 (141266)
09-09-2004 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by ID man
09-09-2004 2:41 PM


Re: already addressed ... yawn- again ...
ID man writes:
BTW addressing something is not the same as refuting it.
As you so eloquently demonstrate post after post. NO refutation to the OT of {ID is a Religion} post topic, NO refutation to the OT of THIS topic, NO refutation of the {ID and contradictions to other faiths} topic OT amd NO refutation of any of the points on the {is ID properly pursued?} topic OT.
All I have read is asserton after assertion after assertion, many of them repetitions of the same points on other topics, and whining about people not reading according to your book lists.
and INABILITY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF THE OT
I guess the OT conclusion is still valid ...

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 44 by ID man, posted 09-09-2004 2:41 PM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by ID man, posted 09-09-2004 3:37 PM RAZD 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