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:   What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 377 (608343)
03-09-2011 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Coragyps
03-09-2011 7:35 PM


Coragyps writes:
Not at all. Pasteur proved that if you kill all the bacteria in a flask of nutrients and prevent outside bacteria from entering, bacteria don't grow in that flask.
How hard can this be to understand? The distinction between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis is explained in the high school biology texts used in essentially every US public high school. Well, at least the texts that creationists haven't gotten to.
Yet a web search for biogenesis turns up countless creationist web pages that take the ridiculous position that Pasteur's experiments proved that abiogenesis and even evolution are impossible.
My favorite "Law of biogenesis" example is Chuck Missler's argument that every time we open a jar of peanut butter we prove that God exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Coragyps, posted 03-09-2011 7:35 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 8:58 PM NoNukes has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 377 (608354)
03-09-2011 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by havoc
03-09-2011 8:58 PM


Abiogenesis v. Spontaneous Generation
havoc writes:
Please explain how abiogenesis and spontaneous generation differ?
I recommend reading the Wikipedia article on Spontaneous Generation. I think that would be enough, but you can also take a peak at the article on Abiogenesis.
I'd also recommend that you examine descriptions of the experiments that Louis Pasteur and Francesco Redi actually performed and that you seriously consider the scope of the conclusions you would reasonably draw from those experiments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 8:58 PM havoc has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 297 of 377 (608586)
03-11-2011 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by slevesque
03-10-2011 2:06 AM


slevesque writes:
jar writes:
BUT, natural processes have been observed.
This is a fallacious reasoning once again. You cannot assert natural processes causes a particular thing just because we have observed natural processes in general.
How about this modification:
Only natural processes have been observed. No one has observed design by a supernatural process. What result can we reach using inductive proofs from this premise?
If you change lead into gold, what is your objection to my concluding, via induction, that you have accomplished the transformation using natural process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by slevesque, posted 03-10-2011 2:06 AM slevesque has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 329 of 377 (608654)
03-12-2011 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 327 by jar
03-12-2011 9:02 AM


Re: Design Evidence
jar writes:
I'm glad. Perhaps you could enlighten us then on just what your objective was?
Please. Don't encourage Drev to post any further in the same vein.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by jar, posted 03-12-2011 9:02 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 341 of 377 (608669)
03-12-2011 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by havoc
03-12-2011 11:43 AM


Re: Design Evidence
havoc writes:
So why do these scientists claim to be Christian? By your definition they don’t believe half the bible why do you consider them Christian?
You cannot possibly be this obtuse.
Perhaps, like me, they are Christians because despite not subscribing to your particular interpretation of Genesis, they consider Jesus Christ their personal Lord and savior and try to live according to his teachings?
I agree with you that calling people liars because of their sincerely held beliefs is foolish, but apparently you're not above posting similar foolishness yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by havoc, posted 03-12-2011 11:43 AM havoc has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 377 of 377 (608823)
03-14-2011 6:30 AM


Summary
In my opinion the only serious attempts made by proponents of ID were slevesque's efforts to defend irreducible complexity (IC) as an indicator of design. At the end of the discussion I felt that I understood the IC argument much better, but unfortunately, I don't believe anyone even attempted to offered evidence for design. Arguments, yes, but arguments with identifiable flaws, and no evidence.
The problem in the discussion here is the same problem that underlies Behe's own efforts. The link between IC and design is merely asserted with at best expressions of incredulity that IC could arise through evolution. Several posters offered evidence that suggested that IC could result from evolution, but the examples were summarily dismissed. In particular, the failure to deal with the evidence cited for evolution of the mammalian inner ear was very telling. Also, I'm sure Behe must have encountered all of the criticisms leveled here but I did not note any attempts to cite his responses. Perhaps no proponent is really familiar with them.
What could have helped was allowing at least a little discussion of the nature of evidence. The starting post was weak in that area and that the moderator was too quick to cut off discussion of the nature of evidence.
Unlike some others, I am willing to believe that it is possible to identify design without identifying the designer, but I see no convincing argument that IC or specified complexity are useful as indicators of intelligent design. There is unchallenged evidence that evolution can produce organisms with those characteristics.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024