Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   What exactly is ID?
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 61 of 1273 (528865)
10-07-2009 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Luweewu
10-07-2009 6:35 AM


Re: What is Intelligent Design?
Higher? my daughter @10 understood it.
Then someone obviously explained it who understands the concept: I don't follow your point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Luweewu, posted 10-07-2009 6:35 AM Luweewu has not replied

Luweewu
Junior Member (Idle past 5285 days)
Posts: 8
From: Aus
Joined: 10-06-2009


Message 62 of 1273 (528941)
10-07-2009 3:43 PM


Goodbye
once again i strutted my minute on the stage,
All sound and fury signifying nothing.
Fair thee well.

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Larni, posted 10-08-2009 3:59 AM Luweewu has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 63 of 1273 (529060)
10-08-2009 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Luweewu
10-07-2009 3:43 PM


Re: Goodbye
Great, another uzi drive by.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Luweewu, posted 10-07-2009 3:43 PM Luweewu has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 64 of 1273 (530432)
10-13-2009 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Luweewu
10-07-2009 12:02 AM


Re: What is Intelligent Design?
What have fossils to do with the structure of reality?
I do not understand the basis of your question. I was referring mainly to the Cambrian explosion. Even some evolutionists such as Sean Carroll seem to refer to that particular era as remarkable. Read his book "Endless Forms Most Beautiful". Other evolutionists seem to be offended by the characterization of that era as an explosion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Luweewu, posted 10-07-2009 12:02 AM Luweewu has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 65 of 1273 (530437)
10-13-2009 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dr Adequate
10-07-2009 5:50 AM


Re: What is Intelligent Design?
Someone debating you ... says that there are no examples of a certain thing ... and you reply by asking him to provide an example ... of the thing that he says doesn't exist.
I understand where you are coming from but obviously you didn't follow the thread back. PaulK and I have had this debate about CSI before. I have asked him, "If the information in DNA isn't CSI then, what is it then?" It certainly seems to be specified. Complex is a relative term but I would also say it is complex since the information forms proteins and these proteins also bind together. Proteins bind together in specific ways. (specific shapes, positive and negative bonds and lipid bonds)
I have been very busy lately and I would rather not get into another lengthy debate. I would rather debate Wounded King because he is the best of the best around here and he also seems to have a certain level of self-honesty.
The thinking of atheistic evolutionists seems to go something like this - "The creator would never have created life this way or let things run the way they are therefore, life must have evolved through a Darwinian process and either the Creationists are correct or Darwin was."
I think the above quote is naive.
Some others on this forum seem to have some sort of obligation to correct the double digit percentage of the American public who believe in Creation. Well I will tell you something, I am not a Creationist, I am a proponent of Intelligent Design and any body who refers to us as Creationists is disingenuous.
Intelligent Design is a new paradigm and I get it. It involves the thinking processes. An example of using my thinking to refute the Darwinists is the following Darwinist argument against irreducible complexity.
The flagellum first evolved from point A. A to B to C to D and so on. A turned into B and once B became C then there was no more need for B and so on.
If this is true then tell me what purposes and functions B and C served? What forms of locomotion (if any) were the precursors of the flagellum? Some such as Kenneth Miller use the TTSS as an example of a precursor but apparently recent developments and evidence from science seems to refute him.
Do you see how simple Darwinian conjecture can be and how it can fool the mind that wishes to believe in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-07-2009 5:50 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by bluescat48, posted 10-13-2009 4:13 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 67 by Theodoric, posted 10-13-2009 4:23 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 68 by jacortina, posted 10-13-2009 4:39 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 10-13-2009 4:50 PM traderdrew has replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 66 of 1273 (530464)
10-13-2009 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by traderdrew
10-13-2009 1:39 PM


Re: What is Intelligent Design?
I am not a Creationist, I am a proponent of Intelligent Design and any body who refers to us as Creationists is disingenuous.
So you are not a creationist therefore there is no intelligent designer.
The original premise of the intelligent design movement was to get around the creator in the pseudoscience called "scientific creation" to get around the religious aspects after the supreme court descision in Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987, which struck down the Louisiana equal treatment law. (ref. Why People Believe Weird Things, Michael Shermer, pg161.)

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by traderdrew, posted 10-13-2009 1:39 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by traderdrew, posted 10-14-2009 11:58 AM bluescat48 has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 67 of 1273 (530468)
10-13-2009 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by traderdrew
10-13-2009 1:39 PM


Re: What is Intelligent Design?
Well I will tell you something, I am not a Creationist, I am a proponent of Intelligent Design and any body who refers to us as Creationists is disingenuous.
Ok so the Intelligent Designer just designs? Who creates? By virtue of claiming there is an Intelligent Designer you are implying there is a process of creation too. To claim otherwise would be disingenuous.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by traderdrew, posted 10-13-2009 1:39 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by traderdrew, posted 10-14-2009 12:07 PM Theodoric has replied

jacortina
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


Message 68 of 1273 (530472)
10-13-2009 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by traderdrew
10-13-2009 1:39 PM


Re: What is Intelligent Design?
I will tell you something, I am not a Creationist, I am a proponent of Intelligent Design and any body who refers to us as Creationists is disingenuous.
No, it's those who claim that 'designer-did-it' is any different from 'god-did-it' who are being disingenuous. There are a number of types of creationists out there and ID Creationists are one of them.
Intelligent Design is a new paradigm and I get it.
If by new, you mean centuries old and still not science ...
But if you truly do 'get it', then let us know. Show the thing is possible, even if only in principle. Without that, why should anyone accept something not shown to be even in principle a possibility.
How is the designer(s) supposed to have worked? How/when/where was design put in place? How was design applied to result in the flagellum? Where can we go to verify that such was even possible, let alone verify that it WAS done?
You see, if we don't know the exact steps that occurred to lead to the flagellum, the current state is 'we don't know'. That is the correct default position. Designer-did-it is NOT a valid default position.
This is what makes you a creationist, like it or not. This attempt to claim this 'designer-of-the-gaps' position beloved of all creationists. Like any of them, you think you can make your special position true by attacking real science rather than trying to find evidence that actually supports your position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by traderdrew, posted 10-13-2009 1:39 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by traderdrew, posted 10-14-2009 12:24 PM jacortina has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 69 of 1273 (530475)
10-13-2009 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by traderdrew
10-13-2009 1:39 PM


Re: What is Intelligent Design?
quote:
I understand where you are coming from but obviously you didn't follow the thread back. PaulK and I have had this debate about CSI before. I have asked him, "If the information in DNA isn't CSI then, what is it then?" It certainly seems to be specified. Complex is a relative term but I would also say it is complex since the information forms proteins and these proteins also bind together. Proteins bind together in specific ways. (specific shapes, positive and negative bonds and lipid bonds)
And quite obviously you haven't been paying attention. The "CSI" that is supposed to be a problem is Dembski's CSI - which has very little to do with what you are talking about.
Interestingly in an earlier discussion I suggested that the name CSI was misleading. It seems that you have been so thoroughly mislead you are unable to even consider the possibility that Dembski wasn't talking about the "obvious" meaning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by traderdrew, posted 10-13-2009 1:39 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by traderdrew, posted 10-14-2009 12:34 PM PaulK has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


(1)
Message 70 of 1273 (530648)
10-14-2009 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by bluescat48
10-13-2009 4:13 PM


Re: What is Intelligent Design?
The original premise of the intelligent design movement was to get around the creator in the pseudoscience called "scientific creation" to get around the religious aspects after the supreme court descision in Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987, which struck down the Louisiana equal treatment law. (ref. Why People Believe Weird Things, Michael Shermer, pg161.)
So therefore intelligent design couldn't possibly be conceptually applied as anything else since it was derived from Creationism? In other words, once the intention was established, the term must never be modified or used in another way? Your argument sounds like a strawman argument to me.
I stated it before and I state it again here. Creationism attempts to shoehorn the evidence into a Biblical framework. Intelligent Design derives its ideas from the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by bluescat48, posted 10-13-2009 4:13 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by NosyNed, posted 10-14-2009 12:18 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 78 by Theodoric, posted 10-14-2009 1:04 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 81 by bluescat48, posted 10-14-2009 1:55 PM traderdrew has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 71 of 1273 (530652)
10-14-2009 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Theodoric
10-13-2009 4:23 PM


Re: What is Intelligent Design?
By virtue of claiming there is an Intelligent Designer you are implying there is a process of creation too. To claim otherwise would be disingenuous.
You have a misunderstanding in your terminology, not that I think I can convince you Theodoric. We have had arguments before around here.
The term 'create' is different than the term 'make' or 'assemble' but the English language tends to synonymize them. If I happen to make a table I don't 'create' it, I fashion it from pieces of wood. Essentially I make the pieces and assemble them together.
There is something I discovered also, I went back in attempt to look for the original Hebrew meanings of the words in the book of Genesis. The Hebrew word 'vaya'as' was used but not excusively used in the first chapters. The word means "to make" but not "to create".
The English Bible has lost some of its meanings in the processes of translation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Theodoric, posted 10-13-2009 4:23 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Theodoric, posted 10-14-2009 1:02 PM traderdrew has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 72 of 1273 (530653)
10-14-2009 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by traderdrew
10-14-2009 11:58 AM


Motivations
I stated it before and I state it again here. Creationism attempts to shoehorn the evidence into a Biblical framework. Intelligent Design derives its ideas from the evidence.
First parts right.
Unfortunately, the second part hasn't been shown to be true.
ID has so far been a combination of God of the gaps and attempts to poke holes in evolutionary theory with no replacement.
If it is actually derived from the evidence then that has managed to escape me so far even after quite a bit of reading. Perhaps it is time to supply the evidence and logic?
And things like the following don't cut it:
1. Things are so wonderful/complex they obviously have to be designed.
2. I can not imagine any way that could have worked so it must have been designed.
3. Any argument from irreducible complexity which has been shown to be too flawed to be of use.
4. Any argument from probabilities which have, so far, always been shown to be masturbating with numbers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by traderdrew, posted 10-14-2009 11:58 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by traderdrew, posted 10-14-2009 12:41 PM NosyNed has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


(1)
Message 73 of 1273 (530654)
10-14-2009 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by jacortina
10-13-2009 4:39 PM


Re: What is Intelligent Design?
No, it's those who claim that 'designer-did-it' is any different from 'god-did-it' who are being disingenuous. There are a number of types of creationists out there and ID Creationists are one of them.
I already explained your faulty logic just a moment ago. I cannot go back in time and prove that 'god-did-it', I can only show anecdotal evidence that a designer was present at the time. From the evidence I have no idea what the current intentions of the designer are or if the designer still exists. In my opinion, God did it but science cannot prove or rule out the existence of God.
How is the designer(s) supposed to have worked?
I could assume the designer could have used technologies beyond our current technology or possibly could have employed the services of others.
How/when/where was design put in place?
We should use your current science in an attempt to seek some possible answers. It uses competing theories based on abductive reasoning to explain it.
How was design applied to result in the flagellum?
The flagellum propels certain types of bacteria. It was probably assembled one way or another. I don't necessarily buy the creation explanation. The creation explanation cites supernatural causeations. Supernatural doesn't necessarily mean we couldn't necessarily duplicate the results one day. The concept of 'supernatural' also assumes we could never understand the science behind some of it.
Where can we go to verify that such was even possible, let alone verify that it WAS done?
Maybe the sciences will surprise us someday. Science has shown us that the TTSS isn't ancestral to the flagellum and this surprised me how science can determine what occurred billions of years ago.
You see, if we don't know the exact steps that occurred to lead to the flagellum, the current state is 'we don't know'. That is the correct default position. Designer-did-it is NOT a valid default position.
"We don't know" is also my position also but intelligent design exists a casual explanation. ID may or may not be scientific. If it isn't scientific that would not disqualify it as an explanation.
Intelligent Design is a new paradigm and I get it.
If by new, you mean centuries old and still not science ...
You are correct it is actually centuries old but most people have not been introduced to the paradigm. Most only know know the Creationist and the Darwin paradigms which are practically opposites.
But if you truly do 'get it', then let us know. Show the thing is possible, even if only in principle. Without that, why should anyone accept something not shown to be even in principle a possibility.
Yours is a flawed perception. It assumes that possibilities can only be derived from science. If you wish to continue to think this way then may your science serve you well. I wish you no harm.
This is what makes you a creationist, like it or not. This attempt to claim this 'designer-of-the-gaps' position beloved of all creationists. Like any of them, you think you can make your special position true by attacking real science rather than trying to find evidence that actually supports your position.
The gaps are shrinking is only a conceptual phantom in your mind. The reality is that science is showing that life is more complex than scientists once thought it was. The flagellum and the cilium were gaps that weren't known to exist some 20 years ago.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by jacortina, posted 10-13-2009 4:39 PM jacortina has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Theodoric, posted 10-14-2009 1:10 PM traderdrew has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 74 of 1273 (530657)
10-14-2009 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by PaulK
10-13-2009 4:50 PM


Re: What is Intelligent Design?
The "CSI" that is supposed to be a problem is Dembski's CSI - which has very little to do with what you are talking about.
Another strawman argument that goes like this - Dembski defined CSI and therefore traderdrew cannot define it in another logical way.
I know that you know that I haven't read "Design Inference" from a previous debate we had. At least your debate gives me some things to think about such as the following -
ID is amorphous.
That might be true but we should follow the evidence were it leads us. There are people who use it in their own way. Darwinian conjecture is also fairly amorphous. It is flexible.
Behe makes extraordinary demands.
If Darwin cannot be explained on a biochemical scale, (random mutations occur on that level) then why should it be used to explain the development of life?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 10-13-2009 4:50 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by PaulK, posted 10-14-2009 12:52 PM traderdrew has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 75 of 1273 (530660)
10-14-2009 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by NosyNed
10-14-2009 12:18 PM


Re: Motivations
1. Things are so wonderful/complex they obviously have to be designed.
I agree this doesn't cut it. On the other hand, you must explain how certain things came to be by random processes.
2. I can not imagine any way that could have worked so it must have been designed.
Yes, this is a lame assumption.
3. Any argument from irreducible complexity which has been shown to be too flawed to be of use.
Flawed in what way?
4. Any argument from probabilities which have, so far, always been shown to be masturbating with numbers.
Don't Darwinian evolutionists play with numbers? I think they orgasm over natural explanations and are automatically turned off by any thought of design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by NosyNed, posted 10-14-2009 12:18 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by NosyNed, posted 10-14-2009 2:10 PM traderdrew 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