Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Argument from Design: Design for who?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2 of 39 (145994)
09-30-2004 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zhimbo
09-30-2004 11:19 AM


A comment on Dembski
Since Dembski's "actual specified complexity" means "something mind-bogglingly unlikely to have come about by any means other than design" he's really talking in circles.
Dembski's comment only means "if we've got a really strong case for design then we can conclude design". Actually producing that case for design by finding examples of CSI in biology, however, seems to be beyond him. Or any other member of the ID community.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zhimbo, posted 09-30-2004 11:19 AM Zhimbo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 11:34 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 4 of 39 (146004)
09-30-2004 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by ID man
09-30-2004 11:34 AM


Re: A comment on ID
Please show the relevant work where any of the four people you name has successfully identified CSI as defined by Dembski in biology.
I note in advance that identifying a structure as IC is inadequate - I want to see the full probability calculations covering all relevant possibilities, as required by Dembski.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 11:34 AM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 11:54 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 7 of 39 (146017)
09-30-2004 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ID man
09-30-2004 11:54 AM


Re: A comment on ID and more double-standards
Your link is not relevant since it does not make the relevant calculations asked for. Moreover you offer no details of the argument from the other paper - and since your first example is clearly not what was requested there is no reason why I should believe the other claim.
And finally what is it with your continued lying about "double standards" ? You seem barely able to write a post without falsely accusing someone of this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 11:54 AM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:20 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 16 of 39 (146053)
09-30-2004 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by ID man
09-30-2004 12:20 PM


Re: A comment on ID and more double-standards
I told you what would satisfy me. Expecting me to be satisfied with something far less is unreasonable on your part.
How, for instance, was it shown that all relevant chance hypotheses had been considered as Dembski's method requires ?
Indeed what exactly does the probability represent ? What is the specification and what chance hypotheses were employed ?
Your article doesn't say - clearly it falls short of showing that the probability represents CSI.
Moroever if your accusation of double standards is not a lie you should be able to reference the posts where:
a) I claimed that a specific piece of work had been done
b) I refused to produce an example.
Please take careful note of these requirements instead of producing something else and then complaining that I should accept whatever you offer even if it falls far short of supporting your own claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:20 PM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:57 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 22 of 39 (146071)
09-30-2004 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by ID man
09-30-2004 12:57 PM


Re: A comment on ID and more double-standards
Thank you for admitting that you do not have an example where I claimed a piece of work had been done and then produced an example.
Therefore we have now established that your claim of "double standards" was indeed a lie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:57 PM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 1:22 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 28 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 1:29 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 30 of 39 (146102)
09-30-2004 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by ID man
09-30-2004 1:22 PM


Re: A comment on ID and more double-standards
You implicitly made such an admission by refusing to produce an actual example - which was required to support your claim of a double standard.

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: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


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: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024