What exactly is ID?

I am not quite sure I understand. It does seem a bit rash to suddenly start writing evolution textbooks so I must assume you intend some other method of income related to biology?You can make more money selling creationism, but I assume given your declaration of immediate conversion you hold honesty as an important condition?Do you then, honestly, believe that God has to have done what you say he had to do? Given the evidence suggests differently why then do you support atheism instead of just disliking God? I can think of a few people I dislike but I am not atheist about their existence. If you do simply decide to dislike God you cannot claim to be Atheist, angry Christian perhaps, but not atheist.Personally I find your tenuous belief to be sad. I thought only atheists had such a lack of faith in a creator. To be on the edge of a complete conversion must be slightly unsettling?

Something has gone badly wrong with the formatting of this post.

Would that be someone who "not only knows of evolution, but has also studied it extensively for years?"Edited by Chippo, : No reason given.

There is only a minuscule number of mutations that provide any perceived benefit to an organism.And in every instance I've been presented with, rather than actually being a benefit, the situation is one where the adopted change is a defense mechanism. Rather than actually improving an organism to a higher state than it's peers, it functions to promote and sustain a poorly performing process.It's only "helpful" in that it helps weaken the species population.
And that the best example people can come up with.
Not a very valid concept.
Much less a foundational principal.Much less The Answer To Life And Everything.Edited by Sky-Writing, : .Edited by Sky-Writing, : .

Who invented the word "complex?" Is it ever used to describe something simple? What about the word "specific?" Does anyone own it? Or how about "information?" Did Dembski invent it?So what difference does it make who points out that something possess all three qualities? That term shouldn't vary depending on who uses it, should it? My point here is to take the focus off of the person who coined the phrase, and put it on the actual concept.(I wish I had a dollar for every time I've had to say that!)

I can't see any problems in the rendering of Message 573 in Chrome, IE or FF. Can you describe the problem you're seeing and tell me which browser you're using?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Cute come back Chip. No I actually meant someone who would actually have a real reason to believe in it and accept it as opposed to those who just promote it because they're afraid of the only alternative.BTW, would going on the sixth year of extensive study of the issue count?

There was a problem, which has been fixed now.

I am not sure that I fully understand your question here Vacate. It seems like you are asking why would I hate God should I discover that He never existed. If I did in fact discover that the Bible was false, that is exactly what that would mean. I have looked at all the major religions and found that only Christianity stands alone when it comes to historical, archaeological, scientific, and prophetic accuracy. But that's a different thread.By the way I am not on any edge of conversion here. I am so confident that the truth lays in that which I have placed my faith, that I can make such a bold statement. How many atheists can say that. Besides, someone wise once told me that it is impossible to know the truth unless you love the truth. I love the truth so much that I would abandon all for it.Edited by Brad H, : No reason given.

quote:

---

My intent here is not to make any defenses for Dembski's use of the term csi.

---

While Dembski' use arguably DOES need defending (in that it is quite misleading) that was not the point under discussion.Let me remind you. When I pointed out that you had no known examples of Dembski's CSI to use as evidence, you claimed that you had "...already given those examples several times and demonstrated why." You claimed to be ready to listen to rebuttals.Well I rebutted your claim by pointing out that you had done no such thing. And this is your reply ? "My intent here is not to make any defenses for Dembski's use of the term csi."

quote:

---

He doesn't own or have a patten on the term.

---

In fact so far as I can tell he essentially invented the term. While there are ideas using similar phrasing predating Dembski, Dembski is the first to use CSI as a specfic term denoting a specific idea.

quote:

---

I have pointed out that there is observable csi in living organisms and that it can be quantified and measured.

---

Using a meaning of CSI that does NOT rule out natural patterns.Let us sum up the conversation (paraphrased for brevity):You: ...I am going to talk about complex and specific information which does rule out natural patterns.Me: Then you have to use Dembski's CSI, and you have no examplesYou: I AM using Dembski's CSI and I DID provide examples.Me: No you didn'tYou: I'm NOT using Dembski's CSIPerhaps this makes what you are doing more obvious.

Hi all!Years of discussion board experience tell me that the phrase, "I already explained that," can be a big red flag, because it is often the case that people who actually know, understand and can articulate their position will do so at the drop of a hat over and over again.The same experience tells me that general statements and unsupported assertions indicate a person who has much more in the way of opinion than knowledge of facts and an understanding of their relationships.Smooth Operator, I've already posted you a couple messages.Brad H, please provide links to or cut-n-pastes from the messages where you've "already given those examples [of CSI] several times." PaulK was looking for examples of "how to properly apply Dembski's method to living things." He already replied to your lengthy one-paragraph argument in Message 542. It reads like the outline of an interesting hypothesis, not a rigorous method for calculating CSI. If you don't use Dembski's method then simply show how to apply the method you do use.Sky, this thread is nearly up to 600 messages and is well past the point of just stating a position with no supporting evidence or argument.Everyone else: When those arguing for ID make a reasonable request then please try to fulfill it. For example, concerning Brad H's request for an example of a mutation that adds information to the genome, telling him to go look up nylon eating bacteria is not a satisfactory answer (to be fair, that answer was actually in another thread, but you get the idea).Sometimes these discussions remind of an old joke: I know some of us have been here a long time and have seen these arguments before, but you can't rebut an argument by just shouting out "28!"

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

No no, what I mean is why would God cease to exist simply because your wrong? That makes no sense. Your version or interpretation may be incorrect. It fails to follow that if the Bible is wrong God cannot exist. Just the God you say has to have done things exactly as you say doesn't exist. I would hazzard a guess and say none? Atheists have no faith, thats kinda the point. But you are! Your one piece of evidence away from a total conversion, you even said so. I cannot comprehend how one peice of evidence can literally kill God, poof!! Not a different God than you imagined He was, but actually no God.

I don't really know if there could be anyone that accepts the theory and fact of evolution for what it is that would have that "fear" or even consider the so called "alternative" you are describing. Scientists put the years of research on the line every day with their studies more so than a politically driven agenda which makes its living misrepresenting quotes and data can.Any "hard line evolutionist" as you put it that takes ID as a serious competitive alternative in the lab can't be very hard line.

An odd way to ask with such little background info...but1. The earth was made fully usable about 10,000 years ago......by our reckoning. I'm not saying the dirt and rock under our feet was like a fresh batch of thin Plaster of Paris, set up, and dirt sprinkled on top at that time.....but that a fully formed, usable, ready to go earth was created at a particular time about that many years ago.A good designer creates things that are suitable for the intended purpose. An intelligent design would include good weather, so we could sleep outdoors and a reasonable fuel supply for inclement weather. And nice hard bedrock so skyscrapers wouldn't tip over.2. An Intelligent designer created Man, plus every kind of animal DNA that the world would be needing. (species? genus? family?)
(colony? slueth? drove? skein? husk? brood? cast? drift?)
"Drove" applies to cattle, so just picking one, I'll say He created a whole "Drove" of animals that included every animal needed.3. Yes, during the week, the Intelligent Designer created life. Mind you, none of the animals needed teething. None needed help from parents. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The chicken. The chicken was created, ready to lay eggs.
(Glad to clear THAT one up.)Observations for #3. Putting a chicken in one open pen area and an egg in the other, I observe the chicken survives. So the chicken came first.Observations for #2. Dogs have more physical variation than most any species of animal we know, weighing from 18 ounces to 280 pounds. And we did that with selective breeding alone.So I observe that a species carries all the genetic material it needs to cover all the variations we've seen. No new genetic information has ever been created, (none is needed) and that which we find is degrading at sometimes predictable rates. Nobody has ever found a suitable source of new genetic material as mutations are generally harmful and most commonally fatal. So scientific observation points to a large pool of information and planning upfront, with decay of systems and information over time. I may not LIKE what I see, but it's reality none the less.Observations for #1. I observe that the planet is designed to work very well. The tilt is just right, the moon is the correct size to help us live well, (not at all a "natural size" for a moon), the weather is suitable, ground moves enough to make mountains, but not so much that we deal with volcanoes darkening the skies....it all is pretty well designed. Especially considering life can't exist anywhere else.

Why Sky-Writing, Sky? Doctor Pangloss would be a fine nick for you!