Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design explains many follies
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 226 of 302 (303686)
04-12-2006 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Admin
04-11-2006 8:58 AM


Topic Reflections
Braggadocio declarations are poor debate form, ...
I don't consider it a braggadocio declaration to point out that when you leave an argument after having your points refuted means that the argument is dead in the water. If you can't defend it then it's toast. If you can defend it then do so.
But we have to leave the frustrations of these contradictions aside and keep them and our thoughts to ourselves. Perhaps John is a true contradiction, or perhaps he's being less than forthright, but there is no way we can ever know for sure, so best to say nothing.
What John is, is what John is, and contradictions are his problem to sort out. Whether he's playing games or is serious is immaterial to me, as my focus is on the arguments.
To put it in the context of this topic -- that ID explains many follies -- if the ID "explanations" given don't stand up to scrutiny, then they are invalidated "explanations" -- and do NOT show that ID explains anything.
This should be obvious.
Stating they are invalidated is just one way of drawing attention to this fact for anyone who may not think about it as they move on to other arguments.
What we see about the "probability" argument is that it is a folly of ID (and the creationists they inherited it from) to think that it is an explanation of anything.
The reason it is a folly is because of the "massive errors in the logic ...employed" in generating numbers that have no basis in reality: the math is wrong and the assumptions are wrong. GIGO.
me writes:
... so I will take this as a concession that your previous arguments were invalid.
This is just closing the book on the argument. If John wants to revisit it, he's been given a link for the best place to do so.
So far I have not seen one thing "explained" by ID, and more to the point, I have not seen anything to qualify as a "folly" whether ID "explains" it better or not.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Admin, posted 04-11-2006 8:58 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Admin, posted 04-12-2006 9:29 PM RAZD has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 227 of 302 (303705)
04-12-2006 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by RAZD
04-12-2006 8:35 PM


Re: Topic Reflections
RAZD writes:
Braggadocio declarations are poor debate form, ...
I don't consider it a braggadocio declaration...
Oh, well then, that makes all the difference. After all, why should the opinions of moderators count for anything. We'll just let members moderate themselves. Gee, why didn't we think of this before!
Seriously, if you disagree with my moderation then there's a thread for that purpose (General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel). In this thread please stick to the topic and leave the assessments of how well or poorly anyone is doing to the readers.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by RAZD, posted 04-12-2006 8:35 PM RAZD has not replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 228 of 302 (303933)
04-13-2006 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Percy
04-10-2006 3:37 PM


Re: Substantiate your probability numbers.
It seems that most who disagree with my ID explanations still do not understand what ID means.
ID Means exactly this, that an Intelligent Designer designed "the red shift and accelerating expansion." It also means an Intelligent Designer designed fully formed creatures to begin with, with ready made ability to reproduce other creatures after their own kind, according to the DNA designed within them.
Man can study how the red shift is proportional to distance, but the full explanation of why is in the mind of the Intelligent Designer.
Man can study how creatures reproduce and function, but those who believe in ID do not believe the Intelligent Designer caused gradual changes in the DNA in organisms over time to cause speciation. Those who believe in ID simply believe every life creature was a special creative act to begin with.
Defective DNA can result in mutations, and cross breeding can result in similar creatures, but proving gradual DNA changes over time can lead to the vast variety of speciation we see in creatures is what this argument is all about.

The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Percy, posted 04-10-2006 3:37 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by sidelined, posted 04-13-2006 3:15 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 230 by crashfrog, posted 04-13-2006 4:11 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 231 by RAZD, posted 04-13-2006 7:22 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 232 by Percy, posted 04-13-2006 7:52 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 233 by ReverendDG, posted 04-13-2006 9:55 PM John 10:10 has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 229 of 302 (303958)
04-13-2006 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by John 10:10
04-13-2006 1:59 PM


Re: Substantiate your probability numbers.
John 10:10
that an Intelligent Designer designed "the red shift and accelerating expansion." It also means an Intelligent Designer designed fully formed creatures to begin with, with ready made ability to reproduce other creatures after their own kind, according to the DNA designed within them.
This is empty of any information content until such time as you explain what the intelligent designer is. I can substitute the words leprechauns for intelligent designer and have as much content to my sentence as yours does.
that leprechauns designed " the red shift and accelerating expansion." It also means leprechauns designed fully formed creatures to begin with, with ready made ability to reproduce other creatures after their own kind, according to the DNA within them.
Man can study how the red shift is proportional to distance, but the full explanation of why is in the mind of the leprechauns.
Man can study how creatures reproduce and function, but those who believe in leprechauns do not believe the leprechauns caused gradual changes in the DNA in organisms over time to cause speciation. Those who believe in leprechauns simply believe every life creature was a special creative act to begin with.
So I have as good a proposition as you do. If you cannot see this it is because you do not wish to see leprechauns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by John 10:10, posted 04-13-2006 1:59 PM John 10:10 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 230 of 302 (303991)
04-13-2006 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by John 10:10
04-13-2006 1:59 PM


Re: Substantiate your probability numbers.
Man can study how creatures reproduce and function, but those who believe in ID do not believe the Intelligent Designer caused gradual changes in the DNA in organisms over time to cause speciation.
I think the mainstream ID movement would largely disagree with you there, but that's your problem. Granting your premise for a minute, what do believers in ID do when we observe gradual changes in the DNA causing speciation over time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by John 10:10, posted 04-13-2006 1:59 PM John 10:10 has not replied

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


Message 231 of 302 (304047)
04-13-2006 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by John 10:10
04-13-2006 1:59 PM


Try ID, not Creationism ...
It seems that most who disagree with my ID explanations still do not understand what ID means.
ID Means exactly this ...
What you mean is 'God-did-it', and what you have "explained" is just common garden variety creationism.
Calling god an "Intelligent Designer" is not ID, and what you have "explained" is not ID.
Using creationism does not "explain" ID's answer to {as yet unidentified "follies"}.
To play the ID game properly you're supposed to pretend that there is some difference between creationism and IDism, otherwise there is no point in changing the name on the cover.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 04*13*2006 07:22 PM

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by John 10:10, posted 04-13-2006 1:59 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 232 of 302 (304052)
04-13-2006 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by John 10:10
04-13-2006 1:59 PM


Re: Substantiate your probability numbers.
John 10:10 writes:
It seems that most who disagree with my ID explanations still do not understand what ID means.
It's not like there's one theory of ID. IDist views vary quite a bit, and I think it's more the case that we don't yet know your personal views on ID. And how could we if you don't tell us?
ID Means exactly this, that an Intelligent Designer designed "the red shift and accelerating expansion."
Well, okay, but what is the scientific foundation for this? Take me through the process:
  • Hypothesis: An Intelligent Designer designed the red shift and accelerating expansion.
  • Experiment: What experiments were designed and carried out?
  • Results: What was the outcome of the experiments?
It also means an Intelligent Designer designed fully formed creatures to begin with, with ready made ability to reproduce other creatures after their own kind, according to the DNA designed within them.
I would again ask the same question: what were the experiments and the outcomes of these experiments that established this.
And there's another closely related and very important question. What experiments and experimental results are there that establish the correctness of your view of life's origins versus the views of other IDists, such as Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, who believes that the Designer influences life through modifications of DNA, thereby guiding evolution.
In other words, and as I alluded earlier, IDists are not all of one view. What establishes your ID views as the correct ones?
Man can study how the red shift is proportional to distance, but the full explanation of why is in the mind of the Intelligent Designer.
I didn't ask why. That's not a scientific question.
Man can study how creatures reproduce and function, but those who believe in ID do not believe the Intelligent Designer caused gradual changes in the DNA in organisms over time to cause speciation.
How can you say this, given that this is precisely what a very large segment of IDists believe?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by John 10:10, posted 04-13-2006 1:59 PM John 10:10 has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 233 of 302 (304068)
04-13-2006 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by John 10:10
04-13-2006 1:59 PM


Re: Substantiate your probability numbers.
It seems that most who disagree with my ID explanations still do not understand what ID means.
what explanations? you havn't explained anything at all!
what does ID explain that evolution,abiogenesis,cosmology can't?
all of your examples are easily explained by the sciences they are from
D Means exactly this, that an Intelligent Designer designed "the red shift and accelerating expansion." It also means an Intelligent Designer designed fully formed creatures to begin with, with ready made ability to reproduce other creatures after their own kind, according to the DNA designed within them.
this is so far from mainstream ID, you might as well just call it what it really is - creationism
At least behe tries to make ID sound like science

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by John 10:10, posted 04-13-2006 1:59 PM John 10:10 has not replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 234 of 302 (304190)
04-14-2006 9:36 AM


There are some that seem to believe that we must discuss the concept of intelligent design in the universe without recognizing that intelligent design must by definition be connected to an Intelligent Designer. I have given you examples why I believe the simplest cell organisms or atoms could not have assembled themselves into compounds, DNA and living creatures by chance. Most who do not believe in ID recognize the infinitely small probability that chance could be the cause of our existence, and ask for proof that ID is the cause. A few believe that evolution without ID is an indisputable fact proven by evidence. On this point I strongly disagree. Everyone is entitled to their own set of opinions, but not to their own set of facts. There is in no way, shape or form that evolution without ID is the cause of our existence and has been proved. If those who believe in evolution without ID would simply say this, and then give room to ID as an alternate belief, then we could stop asking each other for proof of our beliefs because there are none for either of us. Of course, there are those in the non-ID camp who strongly disagree, offering so-called fact after fact after fact, which are nothing more than opinions and suppositions how the evolutionary process somehow evolved or is evolving over time.

The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Chiroptera, posted 04-14-2006 9:50 AM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 236 by Percy, posted 04-14-2006 9:54 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 238 by ReverendDG, posted 04-14-2006 9:41 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 239 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2006 10:44 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 240 by kalimero, posted 04-15-2006 1:16 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 251 by RAZD, posted 04-17-2006 7:44 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 302 (304191)
04-14-2006 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by John 10:10
04-14-2006 9:36 AM


quote:
I have given you examples why I believe the simplest cell organisms or atoms could not have assembled themselves into compounds, DNA and living creatures by chance.
And you have been told that no one believes that this occurred by "chance".
-
quote:
Most who do not believe in ID recognize the infinitely small probability that chance could be the cause of our existence....
Indeed, which is why most who do not believe in ID recognize that our existence is not due to chance.
-
quote:
There is in no way, shape or form that evolution without ID is the cause of our existence and has been proved.
Perhaps, but that proof was never demonstrated by you. You have merely expressed your own conceptual difficulties, and you have demonstrated that you do not understand the subject under discussion.
--
quote:
Everyone is entitled to their own set of opinions, but not to their own set of facts.
Nor is anyone entitled to their own rules of logic. Your facts are wrong and your arguments are illogical.

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by John 10:10, posted 04-14-2006 9:36 AM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by John 10:10, posted 04-16-2006 6:49 PM Chiroptera has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 236 of 302 (304192)
04-14-2006 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by John 10:10
04-14-2006 9:36 AM


I think it would help if you removed the word "prove" from your vocabulary. I'm sure this has been said before, but nothing is ever proven in science. We can only build theories based upon evidence. Theories are not proven, only supported by evidence.
The difference between evolution and ID is that there's evidence supporting evolution, while there's no evidence supporting ID. If I'm wrong about this then, similar to what I asked before, please walk me through this process:
  1. Hypothesis: An Intelligent Designer is responsible for life on this planet.
  2. Experiments and/or observations: What experiments were designed and carried out, what observations were attempted?
  3. Results: What was the outcome of the experiments and observationss, and how did they support ID?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by John 10:10, posted 04-14-2006 9:36 AM John 10:10 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2006 8:50 PM Percy has not replied

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


Message 237 of 302 (304320)
04-14-2006 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Percy
04-14-2006 9:54 AM


3. Results: What was the outcome of the experiments and observationss, and how did they support ID?
More to the point, how did they support ID better than evolution (abiogenesis\geology\etc)? How did they distinquish that ID is a better explanation than evolution (abiogenesis\geology\etc)?
If you end up with results where competing theories have an equal result in predicting the answer then you have not shown that one is better than the other.
The sun "rising" in the east is explained eqaully well by a geocentric flat earth as by the rotating earth theory, so the rising sun is not a test of one to provide a better explanation than the other.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Percy, posted 04-14-2006 9:54 AM Percy has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 238 of 302 (304328)
04-14-2006 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by John 10:10
04-14-2006 9:36 AM


You really arn't talking about ID anymore are you? Lets fess up and say what you really mean, which is creationism
Your whole post is just a smoke screen for you not to answer anyones questions
so i'll ask you again:
What does ID explain? how does it explain what we see in nature?
How does anything in ID explain anything better than the relivent fields in science?
By the way evolution is not a belief, we can test it see it and learn from it, what has ID taught us, what does it predict?
All i've seen it being used for is to get religion in school and to make people look stupid for not knowing anything about it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by John 10:10, posted 04-14-2006 9:36 AM John 10:10 has not replied

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


Message 239 of 302 (304336)
04-14-2006 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by John 10:10
04-14-2006 9:36 AM


the probability of repeating an invalidated assertion is high ...
Hello again John,
My reply is in two parts - one about old issues and one about new ones - followed by some closing comments.


PART 1: old issues.
Most who do not believe in ID recognize the infinitely small probability that chance could be the cause of our existence, and ask for proof that ID is the cause.
In case you missed it before, this "probability" argument has been invalidated because it has been shown to (typically) rely on false mathematics and false assumptions.
In order to use this argument again you need to show that the mathematics and assumptions you are referring to are valid in this instance. You must actually present the assumptions and mathematics to support your position, and then you have to show how the assumptions and mathematics are valid, rather than just repeating this assertion as if you didn't even notice the errors you've been shown.
You have not done that.
The place to do that is {the old improbable probability problem } thread (click)
What am I supposed to conclude when you don't substantiate your claim or support it in any way eh?
That you can't or that you won't?
What am I supposed to conclude when you repeat such an assertion that has been shown to be full of errors without any of those errors being refuted?
That you don't appreciate the logical fallacy of your position or that you intentionally disregard the logical fallacy of your position?
What are the options eh?


PART 2: new issues.
There are some that seem to believe that we must discuss the concept of intelligent design in the universe without recognizing that intelligent design must by definition be connected to an Intelligent Designer.
Talk to the ID proponents, not the critics.
I have given you examples why I believe the simplest cell organisms or atoms could not have assembled themselves into compounds, DNA and living creatures by chance.
No, you have just repeated assertions. Assertions are not examples, for you to give examples you would have to detail exactly how "organisms or atoms could not have assembled themselves into compounds, DNA and living creatures by chance" and not just make a statement to that effect. Making such a statement, as previously pointed out, does not distinguish this "explanation" from one where leprechauns did it all. Repeating an assertion does not make it any more valid either.
A few believe that evolution without ID is an indisputable fact proven by evidence.
As pointed out science doesn't "prove" any theory, the best that you get is substantiating evidence that doesn't contradict the theory. So far evolution has substantiating evidence. Where some theories ran into contracting evidence, those theories were invalidated (Lamarckism, etc) and replaced by new theories. This is how science operates.
On this point I strongly disagree.
Bully for you. Unfortunately this has no effect on the validity of your argument. Opinion is like that:
Everyone is entitled to their own set of opinions, but not to their own set of facts.
Which is why we keep asking you for those facts to substantiate your assertions of {your opinions}.
And why we keep saying that as long as you don't provide any substantiation all you have is {your opinion}.
And why we keep saying that when the evidence shows otherwise than {your opinion} that you need to show some means for {your opinion} to be compatible with the facts.
There is in no way, shape or form that evolution without ID is the cause of our existence ...
According to {your opinion}. Please substantiate that with those pesky facts eh? Demonstrate that "evolution without ID" could not be the answer. After all you are entitled to your own set of opinions, but not to your own set of facts, right?
... and has been proved.
{sigh} ... repeat: As pointed out science doesn't "prove" any theory, the best that you get is substantiating evidence that doesn't contradict the theory. So far evolution has substantiating evidence. Where some theories ran into contracting evidence, those theories were invalidated (Lamarckism, etc) and replaced by new theories. This is how science operates.
If those who believe in evolution without ID would simply say this, ...
Science is agnostic. Science is about explaining the way the natural world works by the "rules" of the natural world, which we discover in the process of trying to figure out how the natural world works.
Whether the "rules" of the natural world are supernaturally ordained or just happened to be what they are is immaterial to the scientific inquiry into understanding how they work.
... and then give room to ID as an alternate belief, ...
You, on the other hand are insisting that some specific IDer is involved and must be included, but provide no evidence, test or substantiation for {your opinion} here, and somehow you feel that {your opinion}, your personal belief, needs to have some scientific value just because you like it and repeat it? Where is the science in that?
And ID is an alternate belief to what? Creationism? Since when does any science rely on belief?
... then we could stop asking each other for proof of our beliefs because there are none for either of us.
{sigh again} ... repeat (once again, with feeling): As pointed out science doesn't "prove" any theory, the best that you get is substantiating evidence that doesn't contradict the theory. So far evolution has substantiating evidence. Where some theories ran into contracting evidence, those theories were invalidated (Lamarckism, etc) and replaced by new theories. This is how science operates.
Of course, there are those in the non-ID camp who strongly disagree, offering so-called fact after fact after fact, which are nothing more than opinions and suppositions how the evolutionary process somehow evolved or is evolving over time.
All any scientific theory needs to show is that it is not invalidated by contradictory evidence. All any opposing theory needs to do is show that the first theory is invalidated by contradictory evidence while the (new) opposing theory is not.
So you can whine about the abundance of evidence in support of evolution all you want to, but as long as you cannot provide any -- repeat ANY -- evidence in support of your assertions (that differentiate between evolution et al and ID {by your definition == god}), you don't have a leg to stand on.
And so far you don't have a leg to stand on.


Concluding remarks:
First off your portrayal of opposition to your belief as "evolution without ID" is a strawman. There are many people of faith that have no problem with evolution or any scientific theory substantiated by evidence and testing.
As a Deist, it is a given part of the package that Intentional Design is in the universal picture, but there is absolutely no contradiction with abiogenesis and evolution (etc) being part of the process, the "rules" of development, for how it is achieved (nor even that the process is anywhere near finished). I also know that this is a philosophical position not supported by anything more than personal belief.
The issue comes down to what you deny as evidence to support your belief, rather than following where the evidence leads. The more evidence a belief system needs to deny the less validity that system has.
When you have to deny whole fields of scientific inquiry to support your personal beliefs - especially when other belief systems don't need to deny those fields - then little "anti-belief-validity" bells (ABVB's) should start going off.
This is where the concept of an "Intelligent Designer" can differentiate itself from the various flavors of Creationism, for the concept of ID taken to it's logical conclusion does not require denial of any science or scientific evidence.
So you are just another creationist that thinks "ID" is a trendy new term for god, because you haven't stepped outside the creationist fold.
Enjoy.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 04*14*2006 10:56 PM

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by John 10:10, posted 04-14-2006 9:36 AM John 10:10 has not replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 240 of 302 (304434)
04-15-2006 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by John 10:10
04-14-2006 9:36 AM


Mathe...what?
Hi John,
I have given you examples why I believe the simplest cell organisms or atoms could not have assembled themselves into compounds, DNA and living creatures by chance. Most who do not believe in ID recognize the infinitely small probability that chance could be the cause of our existence, and ask for proof that ID is the cause.
I think that your method of calculating the 'odds of evolution' are flawed, and I would like you (Just as an experiment) to do those same calculations on your 'act of creation':
ID Means exactly this, that an Intelligent Designer designed "the red shift and accelerating expansion." It also means an Intelligent Designer designed fully formed creatures to begin with, with ready made ability to reproduce other creatures after their own kind, according to the DNA designed within them.
and...
Those who believe in ID simply believe every life creature was a special creative act to begin with.
This doesnt mean I agree with your 'probability argument', just that I would like you to realize the error. If ID wants to 'explain many follies' then obviosly it has to stand against its own argument, or else its self-contradictory. If something is "irreducibly complex" then something else has to create it, right? This is indicative of ID, correct?(according to your opinion)
please show your calculations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by John 10:10, posted 04-14-2006 9:36 AM John 10:10 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