A proof against ID and Creationism

Pasteur's experiments showed that when you eliminate life from a {broth\whatever} that you do not see the effects of life on the {broth\whatever}.The experiments by Paseur were short lived and did not represent the environment that existed on earth before life, or even before oxygen had become predominant in the environment due to the action of life.You cannot say that his experiments in any way compare to ones currently going on in the field of abiogenesis.The only reason I would give for information being buried in an appendix as opposed to a chapter is that some school boards objected to the material being taught (texas?) and it was moved to the appendix so that those students that were curious and wanted to know more had at least some avenue to find it.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

In other words humans are the product of bad, incomplete, incompetent design? And this just proves that ID - when you do this - is faith.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Because there are so many bad designs. Barely functional designs, designs that a human can see a better way of doing, designs that humans keep trying to fix with improved designs.Creationists can claim the reason for bad designs is corruption, sin and the like.Neo-paleyanism ("Intelligent" design) that is intentionally divorced from faith has no such excuse.There is no reason for virus infections not to be beneficial and deliver new and improved disease resistance as well as cross-links to other ways of making features so that you can combine the best of the solutions into the next generations.There is no reason for design to fail, on such a broad scale as it does, to meet the basic criteria of good design practices.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Don't you mean the Silly Design Theory?
http://EvC Forum: Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...We do need to present both sides of the design controversy eh?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Nice, but still not quite complete enough to cover OOL and evolution in addition to cosmology (as perhaps conceived by Jeremy and others):B2a. The Universe was created as a special action on the part of God, but life originated through natural processes that may or may not be understood someday, and evolution explains the change in life with time.B2b. The Universe was created as a special action on the part of God, and God created the first life, but evolution explains the change in life with time.B2c. The Universe was created as a special action on the part of God, and God created the major forms of life as we know it, and evolution only explains the minor changes in life with time associtated with "micro"evolution.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

It comes down to the same thing as having to know all the possibilities before you can begin to evaluate the probabilities.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Excellent point. Refreshing. Welcome to the fray.Can I suggest breaking your paragraphs up a little so that each point is more visible? Look at ones you find more "readable" to see what I mean. This can also help you clarify your thoughts in the process: you could break your second paragraph at "As far as evolution ..." and again at "Evolution is a theory ..." to separate your ideas in space a little.ps -- another way to learn some of the tricks here is to use {peek mode} - radio button top right corner of message reply to window - to see the UBB codes for quote windows and the like. I'm not sure I would go that far. To me {ID as a pure concept} is close to Deism, and there needs to be some distinction between {ID as it is used} and {ID as it ought to be used}. You might see more of my point on this thread: { Forum Topic: Is ID properly pursued?} . Feel free to comment there. Are you sure this is the case? Or is it more that lack of communication makes it hard to determine whether that is so?Enough for now. Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Actually it involves both death and reproduction -- ones that can't survive die, ones that can reproduce make the next generation.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.