Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A fatal logical flaw in creationism?
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 16 of 214 (99895)
04-14-2004 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by RAZD
03-25-2004 10:49 AM


Re: What is ID?
RAZD writes:
In ID the design process is ongoing -- a constant tweaking of the design if you will -- and does not confine itself to a single moment of creation.
I don't think this is a neccessary problem for an instant moment of creation. Many ID/ creation proponents put forward the idea that the initial created organism/ organisms had preplanned potentialities within their genome which, at the relevant time, were realised leading to aparent leaps in evolution. Allowing this tenuous line of argument ther is no reason why some all knowing creator could not imbue sufficient 'potential' into his initial creation to allow for all the subsequent development which we characterise as evolution.
Of course this is all arrant nonsense and requires us to assume that there is layer upon subtle layer of highly complex information encoded into the initial genome/ genomes far beyond even the most complex current understandings of genetic organisation, a supposition for which there is absoloutely no basis. However, if we do allow this premise then there is no reason why an omnipotent creator cannot produce an organism, in a single instance of creation, capable of giving rise to all subsequent diversity and even novel IC structure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2004 10:49 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2004 10:56 AM Wounded King has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 17 of 214 (99927)
04-14-2004 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Wounded King
04-14-2004 7:38 AM


Re: What is ID?
proponents put forward the idea that the initial created organism/ organisms had preplanned potentialities within their genome
the problem with that is where a species branches into other species from the same set of instructions ... how can you get more than one result from the same script? (why are there still monkeys? ahahahaa)
this also assumes that all extinctions were pre-planned
is the name of the designer Loki?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Wounded King, posted 04-14-2004 7:38 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Wounded King, posted 04-14-2004 11:40 AM RAZD has replied

Denesha
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 214 (99931)
04-14-2004 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by HoonWoo
04-13-2004 4:51 AM


perfect design
Dear Hoonwoo,
I think sharks are perfect. Long presence in the fossil record, various adaptive diet, worldwide distribution and still well diversified.
Denesha

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by HoonWoo, posted 04-13-2004 4:51 AM HoonWoo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by HoonWoo, posted 04-14-2004 2:58 PM Denesha has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 19 of 214 (99933)
04-14-2004 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by RAZD
04-14-2004 10:56 AM


Re: What is ID?
I don't really see that as a problem. For straightforward diversification of life all that is needed is differential responses to specific environmental niches, things like sympatric speciation might need a bit more finagleing. The same script can give different results if it recieves different inputs, I assume you mean script as in a piece of computer coding.
There are (still?) monkeys because some of the monkey/ ape ancestors ended up in an environment/situation where their monkey 'potentiality' was realised and some where their ape 'potentiality' was realised. As to how you construct such an evolutionary program, you probably have to be both omniscient and omnipotent to do so or indeed to understand it fully, how convenient for the creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2004 10:56 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by HoonWoo, posted 04-14-2004 2:46 PM Wounded King has replied
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2004 2:56 PM Wounded King has replied

HoonWoo
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 214 (99983)
04-14-2004 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Wounded King
04-14-2004 11:40 AM


Re: What is ID?
ID is a very lousy solution - it's worst then saying we do not know!
If we all accept ID, we are more likely to miss out on better solutions(or explanations) and hence impede progress!
Everytime we are stumped, just say "ID" or "god did it" and problem solved!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Wounded King, posted 04-14-2004 11:40 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Wounded King, posted 04-15-2004 4:52 AM HoonWoo has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 21 of 214 (99990)
04-14-2004 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Wounded King
04-14-2004 11:40 AM


Re: What is ID?
... in other words the process degenerates into purely evolutionary processes and the ID concept does not add anything of value to the mix ...
you probably have to be both omniscient and omnipotent to do so
OR the results are not predetermined and the whole thing is an experiment to find out ...
... which gets us back to purely {naturalistic \ scientific} processes and the ID concept does not add anything of value to the mix ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Wounded King, posted 04-14-2004 11:40 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Wounded King, posted 04-15-2004 5:04 AM RAZD has replied

HoonWoo
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 214 (99991)
04-14-2004 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Denesha
04-14-2004 11:21 AM


Re: perfect design
I thought sharks have poor eyesight?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Denesha, posted 04-14-2004 11:21 AM Denesha has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Denesha, posted 04-14-2004 3:16 PM HoonWoo has replied

Denesha
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 214 (99998)
04-14-2004 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by HoonWoo
04-14-2004 2:58 PM


Re: perfect design
Dear HoonWoo,
No needed good eyes in their sensual world. They have the ampulae of Lorenzini and the lateral line. More efficient perception organs.
See more here (at least): Information on Fish Lateral Line System
Denesha

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by HoonWoo, posted 04-14-2004 2:58 PM HoonWoo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by HoonWoo, posted 04-14-2004 6:16 PM Denesha has not replied

HoonWoo
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 214 (100032)
04-14-2004 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Denesha
04-14-2004 3:16 PM


Re: perfect design
What's the point of having eyes then?
A perfect eyesight would have help. At least it doesn't have to munch on human mistakening us as seals!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Denesha, posted 04-14-2004 3:16 PM Denesha has not replied

TechnoCore
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 214 (100072)
04-14-2004 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by gman
04-13-2004 1:56 PM


Please!
Perfection is a no-word. Nothing is perfect in all aspects.
Are humans perfect? Perfect for what ? For living at temperatures between 20-40 degrees C ? maybe.
For grinding rocks to sand by chewing on them ? No.
For running 60Mph? No, but cheeta's are good at it.
If you define perfect as a beeing like God, then in what aspect of him are you refering to ?
Clearly he sucks at explaining things. So we can all agree on that he is not perfect at that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by gman, posted 04-13-2004 1:56 PM gman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Denesha, posted 04-15-2004 3:25 AM TechnoCore has replied

Denesha
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 214 (100157)
04-15-2004 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by TechnoCore
04-14-2004 8:19 PM


Dear TechnoGore,
Two things.
1- I have never assumed that "perfect" is related to God. Perfect is efficient against extinction.
2- Replies will bring this discussion completely out-topic.
However, why not introduce a new thread?
Denesha

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by TechnoCore, posted 04-14-2004 8:19 PM TechnoCore has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by TechnoCore, posted 04-15-2004 7:56 PM Denesha has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 27 of 214 (100169)
04-15-2004 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by HoonWoo
04-14-2004 2:46 PM


Re: What is ID?
I am not putting ID forward as something I support personally. I am simply saying one particular criticism of RAZD's, that because the 'designing' was ongoing there could be no single instant of creation and therefore ID and creationism were incompatible, did not really apply to all ID theories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by HoonWoo, posted 04-14-2004 2:46 PM HoonWoo has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 28 of 214 (100171)
04-15-2004 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
04-14-2004 2:56 PM


Re: What is ID?
Generally the less hard line proponents of ID don't mind it getting a bit evolutionary as long as there is still that supposed IC gap to stick God, or little green men or atlanteans or whatever, into. Its still just the same old tired argument from incerdulity, they don't believe such a thing could simply have evolved therefore it didn't.
As long as they still have one single thread to hang onto where they can say 'but look this particular part of this metabolic pathway simply couldn't have evolved, even though every other single thing has, that must be the bit that God (LGM, atlanteans, etc...) contributed, praise be to God (LGM, antlanteans, etc...)!'.
I never said that ID added anything of value, just that one of your particular criticisms of it was innaccurate.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2004 2:56 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Brad McFall, posted 04-15-2004 9:38 AM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2004 10:13 AM Wounded King has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 29 of 214 (100186)
04-15-2004 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Wounded King
04-15-2004 5:04 AM


Re: What is ID?
I wonder why I have not seen the "gap" explained in terms of the difference of the pre and post 1900 use of the word "ether"(aether)?? Humphries im a video explain that "einstein went back" to the ether and Bridgman describes the "instrument" insistence on "an ether" and I see not problem finding your said 'gap" in this one word over interpretive history time. Also if the instrumental side is stressed the concept of where in textu IC comes in seems nonproblematic to me as the philsophy can get quite complicated when the prgamatics of operationalism are integrated with the known empirical correlations. The ICR difference to say Johnson supported ID seems writeable in such a "space". Y'think??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Wounded King, posted 04-15-2004 5:04 AM Wounded King has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 214 (100191)
04-15-2004 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Wounded King
04-15-2004 5:04 AM


Re: What is ID?
works for me.
I'm surprised they are not all over dark matter and energy ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Wounded King, posted 04-15-2004 5:04 AM Wounded King 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