Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
751 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, dwise1, jar, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (6 members, 745 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,860 Year: 21,896/19,786 Month: 459/1,834 Week: 459/315 Day: 55/82 Hour: 5/13


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time.
Faith
Member
Posts: 33854
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 71 of 187 (810985)
06-03-2017 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Porosity
06-03-2017 3:04 PM


The burden of proof for a designed universe is on the claimant.

But you can't and here's why:

ID provides no way to compare complex systems, like a laptop compared to bio chemical entities, to tell which one is purposefully designed and which was the result of combinations of natural processes.

If there's any kind of rational order in the system it's designed. The ToE assumes such orderly organized things can be the product of random biochemical processes, but that is what can't be demonstrated, it can only be assumed. ID just makes more sense

There are combinations of natural processes that work just fine on their own principles but the very fact that they exist and function at all implies a designer. DNA is absolutely beyond random biochemical processes. Yes it's just an assumption, but the idea that it could be the product of merely natural processes is also an assumption, and a really irrational one.

ID deceptively uses words like "design" and "complexity" without clearly defining them.

Yeah, we creationists always expect people to be able to recognize when something is reasonable in itself. Stupid of us. Design is really very simple and obvious to the rational mind. Functioning complex biological systems necessarily imply an Intelligence that designed them. Yes again it's something we expect an intelligent rational person to be able to recognize. But the ToE has hijacked their minds and cast a spell on them so they can't, they actually think random blind processes could do all this. Behe's rotating flagellum is an example of something that could not have evolved but had to have been designed, even if simply packed into the original DNA code which itself was designed.

ID then goes on to claim "design" without defining the designer or providing any experiment that could independently confirm the existence of said designer.

There is no need to define the designer which is why ID doesn't do it. The whole point is to demonstrate design itself and the designer is implied. The designer has to be infinitely intelligent, what else do you need to know?

All you can answer with is some form of assertion that a designer is not needed, that the appearance of design can be created by the operations of biochemical processes by themselves, that complexity can be the product of evolution too. You expect far more of ID than you can offer for the ToE.

ID raises to many questions of infinite regression "who designed the designer?" which is fundamentally unanswerable, ...

No it doesn't. Skeptics raise those questions all the time whenever God is mentioned. Christianity's God is self-existent, there is no regression because there's only the One God who has existed forever. ID aims to show that biological entities have the characteristics of design, meaning creation by an intelligence, and again all you can do is insist and assert that blind processes can do it alone. The Blind Watchmaker notion. It's all a war of plausibility in the end and if you're devoted to the ToE you'll just go on insisting it can happen, and creationists will go on insisting that it can't, that there must be an infinite intelligence behind what we see.

In other words there is no way to bring evidence to bear on this question, it is completely a matter of rational recognition.

as contradictory to things we already know to be true.

But you don't.

ID is just a clever idea some lawyers came up with to sell pseudoscience to gullible believers and in the end, on every front, fails on science based reality.

It fails on the entrenched bias of the ToE and that's all.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Porosity, posted 06-03-2017 3:04 PM Porosity has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 06-03-2017 5:34 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33854
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 73 of 187 (810992)
06-03-2017 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
06-03-2017 5:34 PM


Re: We do know.
All reason and logic are on the side of ID as well as YEC. You have to ignore all that to make your dating methods superior. Like all methods that seek to reach into the prehistoric past they can't be corroborated. You get one reading based on a theory and that's all you have. You need a lot more than that. Meanwhile the logic and reason that support the argument of design and irreducible complexity should be enough to call the dating methods into question.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 06-03-2017 5:34 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2017 6:50 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33854
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 74 of 187 (810993)
06-03-2017 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
06-03-2017 5:34 PM


Re: We do know.
Come to think of it, I don't know how the dating methods relate to ID. Although I jumped in here to defend the logic of ID, I'm not a follower of ID and don't know whether it's Old Earth or Young Earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 06-03-2017 5:34 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019